Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

London and North Eastern Railway (General Powers) Bill (by Order),

Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Mersey Docks and Harbour Board Bill (by Order),

Read a Second time, and committed.

Surrey County Council Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Wednesday next.

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Bridport Joint Hospital District) Bill,

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Luton) Bill,

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Matlock) Bill,

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

SEA POLLUTION (OIL).

Sir COOPER RAWSON: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps it is proposed to take with regard to Article II, Section 2, of the Draft Convention of the League of Nations, relating to the pollution of the sea by oil and regarding the prescribing by nations of zones, in view of the fact that it is not possible for any zone to be prescribed between England and France for the discharge of oil without this oil shortly reaching the shores of England, Irish Free State, France, Belgium, and Holland, thus causing destruction to birds and fish?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Viscount Cranborne): The object of Article 2 of the Draft Convention is not to establish zones within which the discharge of oil is permitted, but to estab-

lish zones within which the discharge of oil is prohibited. The coasts of France and England are for the most part less than 100 miles apart. This position is covered by Article 2 (2), and if my hon. Friend will refer to this paragraph he will find that it provides that, where the coasts of high contracting parties are less than 100 miles apart, the establishment of zones within which the discharge of oil is prohibited shall be a matter for agreement between the countries concerned. Each country has, however, in such cases, the right to establish without agreement its part of the zone up to the median line between the two coasts. I would add that the draft Convention is still under consideration by Governments and that it is hoped that it will ultimately be submitted to an international conference.

Sir C. RAWSON: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Germany, Russia, and Japan have, replied to the questionnaire which was sent to the various Governments by the League of Nations' committee of experts in January, 1935, on the pollution of the sea by oil?

Viscount CRANBORNE: I understand that a reply has been received from Japan, but not, up to the present time, from Germany or the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

PALESTINE AND TRANSJORDANIA (WINE PRODUCTION).

Mr. BARR: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the fact that the report to the Council of the League of Nations on the administration of Palestine and Transjordania for the year 1934 attributes the large increase in the production of wines to the reduction of licence fees operating: from 1st January, 1934; whether this increase still continues; and whether he will, under the mandate, take all possible steps to secure an improvement in this regard?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. J. H. Thomas): I have seen the statement to which the hon. Member refers. For a variety of reasons the production of wine in 1933 was exceptionally small. There has naturally been some increase both in 1934 and 1935, but the production is still under two-


thirds of that for 1930, despite the considerable increase in the population in the meanwhile. In the circumstances, I see no cause for concern.

POLITICAL DISPUTES.

Mr. J. J. DAVIDSON: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what was the total number of disputes settled by the conciliatory and arbitral procedure of committees of the League of Nations up to the autumn of 1931?

Viscount CRANBORNE: The number of political disputes submitted to and disposed of by the Council of the League of Nations up to the autumn of 1931 was 24.

ITALY AND ABYSSINIA.

Mr. MANDER: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any consideration has been given by the Council of the League of Nations to the question of the interruption of diplomatic

Quantities of crude petroleum and liquid petroleum products exported from (a) the United States of America and (b) Iran, to Italy and Italian Africa during each of the five months ending December, 1934, and December, 1935.


(a)From the United States of America—


Exports to Italy.
Exports to Italian Africa.





1934.
1935.



1934.
1935.





Barrels.
Barrels.



Barrels.
Barrels.


August
…
…
54,471
249,944
August
…
…
—
15,143


September
…
…
102,442
169,236
September
…
…
20
48


October
…
…
21,486
501,776
October
…
…
—
25,777


November
…
…
94,018
596,772
November
…
…
—
111,246


December
…
…
75,674
990,485
December
…
…
24
69,429


Total
…
348,091
2,508,213
Total
…
44
221,643


(b) From Iran—


No information is available beyond that contained in Appendices I and II Paper 5094.


1 barrel=42 United States Gallons or 35 Imperial Gallons.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

OARS (MANUFACTURE).

Mr. DAY: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty when the last quantity of boat oars manufactured in the United States of America for use in His Majesty's ships were purchased, together with the cost of same, and why

relations by the withdrawal of the heads of missions from Rome in connection with the present dispute, in accordance with the eleventh Resolution adopted by the Assembly of the League of Nations on 4th October, 1921?

Viscount CRANBORNE: No, Sir.

Miss RATHBONE: asked the Secretary for Mines what have been the quantities of petroleum and other fuel oils exported to Italy or for the use of the Italian forces by the Anglo-Iranian Company and the United States, respectively, during each of the past five months and during the same five months 12 months previously?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): I have been asked to reply. As the reply contains a statistical statement, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

these boat oars are not made in the Royal Dockyards?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Lord Stanley): The last contract for oars manufactured in the United States of America from American ash was dated October, 1935. The total value of the ash oars purchased


was about £13,000, inclusive of the import duty. It would not be economical to manufacture oars from American ash in His Majesty's Dockyards, owing to the difficulty of selecting suitable logs and to the high cost of importing the timber, much of which would be cut to waste in the process of manufacture. Extensive trials have been made, but no British timber has been found suitable for the particular purpose for which ash oars are required.

Mr. DAY: Cannot ash suitable for oars be purchased in this country?

Lord STANLEY: Not ash of the exact quality that we require.

Mr. DAY: Were inquiries made in the West Country and in Ireland?

Lord STANLEY: Inquiries were made everywhere to see whether we could find British timber that was suitable, but we could not do so.

Mr. KIRKPATRICK: Have we tried colonial or Empire timber?

Lord STANLEY: I said British timber.

Mr. LOUIS SMITH: Could the timber not be imported in a rough state and the oars be made by private firms in this country?

Lord STANLEY: I have already said that that is unnecessarily expensive. We could employ men in the Dockyards more remuneratively.

Mr. SMITH: What about private firms?

DOCKYARDS (ESTABLISHED AND HIRED MEN).

Mr. RALPH BEAUMONT: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what is the present rate of filling vacancies in the established numbers of men in His Majesty's dockyards; what alterations in the rate have taken place since 1929; and what are the considerations governing the fixing of the rate?

The CIVIL LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Kenneth Lindsay): In 1929, only one vacancy out of every eight occurring in the established list in His Majesty's dockyards was filled; in 1930, this proportion was changed to one in six, and in 1934, to the present ratio—one in four. The Admiralty Industrial Council will shortly consider the possibility of a further relaxation of this restriction. During the

War, large numbers of workmen were added to the established list; after the War, owing to extensive discharges and the closing of Rosyth and Pembroke dockyards, the number of established men, especially in the constructive departments, became out of proportion, and it was necessary to correct the balance between established and hired men. No man is placed on the established list unless he has proved his fitness for permanent employment, and unless there is a well-grounded expectation of employing him at his trade until he reaches the age of 60.

Mr. BEAUMONT: In view of the more settled conditions of employment in the dockyards, has not the time come when a greater percentage of dockyard men could be admitted to pensionable establishment?

Mr. LINDSAY: I said that we are considering the possibility of further relaxation.

SABOTAGE.

Commander LOCKER-LAMPSON: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty how many cases of sabotage to His Majesty's ships in different dockyards when under refit have occurred of late; and whether he has any further statement to make on the matter?

Lord STANLEY: There have been six cases of damage or of attempted damage to His Majesty's ships undergoing refit in His Majesty's dockyards. In four of these cases, sabotage is suspected. I have nothing at present to add to previous statements made on this subject.

DISCHARGES (MEDICAL UNFITNESS).

Mr. THURTLE: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty how many men were discharged from the Royal Navy during the last five years as a result of medical unfitness for service brought on by diseases of the chest; and how many of these men were stokers?

Lord STANLEY: I regret that it has not been possible to obtain the desired information in the short time available; I expect, however, that it will be ready very shortly, when I will forward it to the hon. Member.

MEDALS (FORFEITURE).

Mr. SORENSEN: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty


whether he will discontinue the practice of demanding from ex-service men the return of good conduct medals because of crimes or misdemeanours committed after their discharge and while in civil occupation?

Lord STANLEY: The Naval long service and good conduct medal is not usually forfeited for offences committed after discharge from the Service, nor is the long service and good conduct medal, awarded for service in any of the various Reserves, usually forfeited for offences committed after discharge from the Reserve. The Admiralty, however, must reserve the right to impose forfeiture in cases of exceptional gravity.

ROYAL MARINE POLICE (PAY).

Captain PLUGGE: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty the starting pay of the Royal Marine Police and what maximum they are able to reach?

Mr. K. LINDSAY: The starting pay of constables on enlistment in the Royal Marine Police is 5s. 10d. a day. Quarters are provided in addition or, if they are not available, a lodging allowance of 1s. 6d. a day at outports or 2s. a day in London is paid. After two and a half years service constables who have passed the proficiency test receive 6s. 4d. a day —the maximum pay of this rank. Constables are eligible for promotion to sergeant and inspector. The maximum pay of an inspector is 13s. 6d. a day.

ADMIRALTY ESTABLISHMENTS (PAY).

Captain PLUGGE: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in view of the decision in connection with the claim for an increase of pay for mechanics employed in Admiralty establishments, that due regard is to be had to the intention of the Shipbuilding Employers' Federation to increase their rates of pay by 2s. per week as from April next, he will arrange that any award which may be made in consequence shall be applied to all Admiralty industrial employés irrespective of grade or trade?

Mr. LINDSAY: I have already stated that a claim for an increase of pay for mechanics is under consideration and that due regard will be paid to the decision of the Shipbuilding Employers' Federation. No undertaking, however, can be given that awards will be made

irrespective of grade. Existing rates of pay must obviously be borne in mind.

CIVIL PENSIONS.

Captain PLUGGE: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the anomaly that whereas service pensioners employed in His Majesty's dockyards and naval establishments are permitted to retain their pensions in addition to their wages, civil pensioners are prohibited by law from receiving in reemployed pay and pension more than the amount of their wages at the time of being pensioned; and whether he will arrange to review this matter with a view to establishing more equitable procedure?

Mr. LINDSAY: I am well aware of the situation, but I would point out that service pensions and civil pensions are awarded on an entirely different basis and are not comparable. No legislation can be introduced without affecting the whole Civil Service.

Captain PLUGGE: Does not the hon. Member consider that a man who has earned his pension should be entitled to continue to have it until the end of his days, and that it should not be withdrawn upon his being employed?

Mr. LINDSAY: I think the position is somewhat different in the case of service pensions. There have been a limited number of civil pensioners brought back recently. It is not, however, the usual custom in dockyards to bring back these pensioners.

NAVAL CONFERENCE.

Mr. LEACH: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty the Government's attitude to the American proposal at the Naval Conference for a 20 per cent. all-round cut in naval armaments?

Lord STANLEY: As agreement on quantitative limitation is unlikely to be reached by the Naval Conference, the American and other proposals for achieving limitation by that method are no longer under consideration.

Mr. LEACH: Are we to take it from that answer that the Government consider that the proposals for reduction are dead?

Lord STANLEY: I have indicated that they are unlikely to be considered.

Lieut. - Commander FLETCHER: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in their considerations of our naval defence, the naval staff regard Germany as still bound by the Treaty of Versailles not to build battleships of more than 10,000 tons; and, if not, will any decision on limitation of battleship size arrived at by the Naval Conference become applicable to Germany?

Lord STANLEY: Germany already has two battleships of 26,000 tons each under construction, and the naval staff must necessarily take into account the practical bearing of this fact. The agreements reached at the conference will not be applicable to Powers other than those participating in the conference, but it is hoped that arrangements may be made for the acceptance of corresponding undertakings by other Powers.

WEST INDIES (SIR JOHN MAFFEY'S VISIT).

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give any information regarding the purpose of the visit of Sir John Maffey to the West Indies; and whether he has instructions to investigate the possibilities of closer union between the islands and of a further advance towards self-government?

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: Sir John Maffey's visit to the West Indies and British Guiana was arranged with the object of enabling him to gain first-hand knowledge of that part of the Colonial Empire. He has not been instructed to investigate specially any of the problems which arise in that area.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL.

Mr. J. J. DAVIDSON: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any action is contemplated to amend the constitution of the projected Legislative Council in Palestine?

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: No, Sir.

Mr. DAVIDSON: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that the Legislative Council, on which there is a minority of

the Jewish people, is in any way implementing the promise that was made to the Jewish people for a. national home?

Mr. THOMAS: Yes. No-one would challenge the Legislative Council as being contrary to the Mandate. As far back as 1922, when Sir Herbert Samuel was High Commissioner, he himself made a proposal for a Legislative Council which, at that period, was accepted by the Jewish community and refused by the Arabs.

Mr. SHINWELL: Are the relative positions of the parties in the Legislative Council in accordance, with Sir Herbert Samuel's view of the situation and the Mandate itself?

Mr. THOMAS: From the Jewish point of view they have considerably improved.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: In view of the fact that municipal authority, particularly in the Arab areas, has gone back since 1925, ought there not to be a greater development of municipal government to qualify the people for democratic institutions?

Mr. THOMAS: It is very difficult, as I am sure my hon. Friend will agree, to cast reflections upon democracy, whether it be Arab or Jewish. I do not think that experience of the recent Municipal Council would bear the interpretation that the people are unqualified for municipal purposes.

Captain STRICKLAND: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the declared opinion of the Arabs not to regard Palestine as the national home for the Jews, and has he considered that the placing of this—

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a separate question.

LABOUR.

Mr. MESSER: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will give instructions that, in view of the shortage of labour in Palestine, the number of immigrant labourers allowed under the immigration schedule should, in accordance with Jewish representations, be increased?

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I am not aware of any shortage of labour in Palestine. But the High Commissioner takes all relevant factors into consideration when fixing the labour schedules.

Oral Answers to Questions — HONG KONG.

WORKERS (BRITISH INTERESTS).

Mr. DAVIDSON: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the number of workers employed by British interests in Hong Kong; and the total amount of wages paid to employés of British interests?

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: There are so many British interests in Hong Kong that it is impossible to supply the information desired.

MUI-TSAI.

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has now received the views of the district watch committee of Hong Kong on the report of the committee of investigation on the mui-tsai system; and whether he is now in a position to indicate what action he proposes to take?

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: The Governor's despatch has not yet arrived, but I expect it in the next week or two.

Mr. WHITE: In view of the interest in this serious matter, will the right hon. Gentleman take whatever steps he considers appropriate to acquaint the House with the contents of the report when it reaches his hands?

Mr. THOMAS: Yes. As I have explained to the House, the question of mui-tsai not only demands very serious consideration, but I believe the whole mass of our people in this country want to see it abolished under the British flag, and I am applying myself at this moment to the question of how best to deal with the situation.

Mr. WHITE: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware of recent prosecutions for the sale of mui-tsai in the Kowloon territory; that in a recent case where a child was apparently sold for 17s. the police found upon the premises seven children and 11 women and the place was apparently being used as a depot for the sale of children; and whether, in order to ensure that the mui-tsai legislation in operation in Hong Kong may also be effective in the Kowloon territories, he proposes to invite the attention of the Chinese Government, to these practices?

Mr. THOMAS: I have not seen a report of the case mentioned in the ques-

tion, but, if the hon. Member will give me the particulars in his possession, I will certainly inquire into it.

Mr. MABANE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the lease on which Kowloon is held gives jurisdiction in this matter?

Mr. THOMAS: I should like notice of that question, but, as I have said, the whole question of the mui-tsai system in British possessions is under review at present.

FIJI (LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL).

Mr. BANFIELD: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the position as regards the alteration in the constitution of the Fiji Legislative Council; and whether he will take no final steps in the direction of destroying the elective principle without consulting the present electorate through a referendum or by the appointment of a special commission of inquiry?

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: The whole matter is still under consideration. I am not yet in a position to make any further statement on the subject.

Mr. BANFIELD: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me when he is likely to be in a position to make a statement?

Mr. THOMAS: No, Sir; but I will communicate with my hon. Friend at an early date as to when he might put down a further question.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA.

HIGHLANDS.

Mr. F. ANDERSON: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has considered the resolution passed by the Kenya Indian conference expressing alarm over the contemplated Order in Council prohibiting the acquisition of land in the Kenya highlands by Indians; and whether, in view of this and other expressions of Indian opposition, he will refrain from passing this Order in Council?

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, as I stated in reply to the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Drummond-Wolff) on


the 26th February, it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to issue an Order in Council to define the Kenya highlands.

Mr. PALING: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what are the difficulties which have delayed the issue of an Order in Council defining the Kenya Highlands; and whether, in view of such difficulties, His Majesty's Government will reconsider the policy stated in the White Paper on this subject?

Mr. THOMAS: The Order-in-Council has been delayed in order that its terms may be carefully considered and that it may be drafted so as to carry out the policy of His Majesty's Government fully and explicitly. That policy has been stated in the White Paper, and it is not proposed to deviate from it.

Mr. PALING: Do I understand that it is proposed to carry out the policy of reserving these highlands for whites, and excluding the natives?

Mr. THOMAS: I am afraid my hon. Friend is mixing two questions. It is not a question of excluding the natives; it is a question of defining very clearly what has been in existence for a great number of years, so as to leave no doubt or ambiguity as to what is meant by this boundary.

Mr. PALING: Did not the Commission report that these highlands should be given to the white people, that natives should not have access to them, and that, so far as they are on them at the present time, they should be removed; and is not that removal the cause of the difficulty which the right hon. Gentleman is experiencing at the present time?

Mr. THOMAS: No; I am afraid that, as I have said, my hon. Friend is mixing two questions. The difficulty is not on account of the natives, but it is a case in which certain Indian subjects take one view and the highlanders another, and what I propose to do is so to define the boundary as to leave no doubt or ambiguity, and to make it quite clear that we are continuing the policy set out in the White Paper.

Mr. PALING: Then there is no question of altering the policy of keeping the highlands for white people exclusively? Is that policy going to be carried out?

LOCAL RATES.

Mr. LUNN: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can assure the House that in any further cases of devolution of Governmental duties to local district councils in Kenya Colony he will require such bodies to raise and contribute pound for pound from local rates for any Government grant received by them?

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I am not aware that further devolution is expected, but, if so, the question of requiring rates to be levied will receive consideration.

MAIZE (SUBSIDY).

Mr. LUNN: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies from what source the grant by the government of Kenya of £12,500 to guarantee the free-on-rail price of maize at 4s. 6d. a bag for export has been found; and whether any benefit to native producers can be expected from this grant?

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: The funds are being provided from the general revenues of the Colony. It is anticipated that the subsidy will have the effect of enabling native producers to get a better price, for their maize.

Mr. LUNN: There will be no discrimination in the price?

Mr. THOMAS: No, none whatever.

CEYLON.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any statement to make on the situation in Ceylon?

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: A General Election is being held in Ceylon. The polling started on 22nd February, and will finish on 7th March. I understand that the elections have on the whole been orderly, but unfortunately there have been two incidents involving loss of life, as to which I am calling for a full report.

TRANSJORDANIA (JEWS, SETTLE MENT).

Mr. MANDER: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the present position with regard to the purchase of land by Jews in Transjordania; and the reasons why permission has not so far been granted?

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I am unable to add anything to the reply given to the House on 26th March, 1935. The possibility of the settlement of Jews in Trans-Jordan must depend upon local conditions, as to which I must be guided by the advice of the High Commissioner, who is naturally qualified to give advice.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE.

SLOT SAFETY DEVICE.

Mr. DAY: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether all the machines used in the Royal Air Force at present are fitted with the slot safety device; and, if not, how many are not so equipped?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): No, Sir; in the case of certain types of Service aircraft, slots would seriously impair operational efficiency. Otherwise, they are fitted whenever it is advantageous to do so. It is not the practice to insist on slots in current specifications, the stipulated flying characteristics near the stalling speed being obtainable without them. The answer to the last part of the question is that 14 out of 35 types of Service aircraft are not equipped with slots.

Mr. DAY: Can the right hon. Baronet say how many altogether of the aircraft are fitted with this device?

Sir P. SASSOON: I could not say without notice.

Mr. DAY: Cannot the right hon. Baronet give the number of machines?

ENGINES.

Mr. CHORLTON: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air, in view of the difficulty in obtaining skilled craftsmen for the manufacture of aero engines, what special steps he is taking to train others?

Sir P. SASSOON: The question of provision of skilled craftsmen is primarily one for the aero-engine firms themselves, drawing on the normal sources of labour supply, and the Ministry of Labour Employment Exchanges have been able to give them systematic help. In particular, special

arrangements have been made for the detailed needs of the firms to be currently notified to the Exchanges. The available labour in all parts of the country to meet these needs is carefully ascertained through the Ministry's clearing machinery, and the firms are put in touch with the available men. In so far as these skilled additions to their staff are not already fully trained on the work for which they are required, the requisite supplementary training is best given within the firms' own workshops.

Mr. SHINWELL: Are the trade unions concerned consulted before this dilution of labour is asked for?

Sir P. SASSOON: I think that that would be a matter for the Ministry of Labour.

Mr. SHINWELL: Is not this a matter which comes within the jurisdiction of the Air Ministry?

Mr. CHORLTON: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether any steps are being taken to obtain engine parts other than through existing engine firms as sub-contracts; and whether he will give a list of the districts from which such parts are being supplied?

Sir P. SASSOON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, the second part does not, therefore, arise.

CONTRACTS (PRICES).

Mr. ELLIS SMITH: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he will consider the effect of the recent speculation in aircraft shares when asking for estimates in the future?

Sir P. SASSOON: The market valuation of aircraft companies' shares has no effect on contract prices. The House has been informed on a number of occasions of the steps which have been taken to prevent excessive profits.

Mr. SMITH: Is not the Under-Secretary aware that the speculation which is taking place is bound to have an inflationary effect on the capital invested, and will he consider the desirability—

HON. MEMBERS: Why?

Mr. SMITH: Because of our experience in the past.

Sir P. SASSOON: I think that booms on the Stock Exchange very often have little relation to realities. In this case it cannot be due to excessive profits, because the prices for the expansion orders have not yet been fixed.

Mr. THURILE: Can the right lion. Baronet say what the view of his Department is as to what are excessive profits? Can he define excessive profits?

RATIONS (MARGARINE).

Mr. LEACH: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air (1) whether he is aware that butter and not margarine is served to the air forces in all the British Dominions, the United States of America, Norway, Sweden, and Soviet Russia; and whether he will reconsider the decision to continue the issue of margarine and not butter to the Royal Air Force;
(2) why so low-priced and inferior a grade of margarine is selected for the Air Force; why the ration is only one ounce per day per man; and why, when puddings containing margarine figure on the menu, the amount available to the men for their bread is correspondingly reduced?

Sir P. SASSOON: As regards the first question, I do not think I can usefully add to my recent replies to other questions on this subject. As regards the second, I do not think that a discussion whether the grade of margarine used is inferior or the ration of it inadequate could suitably be carried on within the scope of a Parliamentary reply: it. is a difficult question in which considerations of comparative food values and calory content are involved. As regards the last part of question number 51, the purchase of margarine for puddings does not necessarily involve a corresponding reduction in the amount for eating with bread, the position being that the distribution of the money allowance over various items of food is at the discretion of the messing officer and there is therefore a certain amount of give-and-take between the constituents of the ration.

Mr. LEACH: Is it a fact that the cheap margarine which the Air Force is so unjustifiably using in summer time is barely distinguishable from axle oil?

Mr. SHINWELL: In the search for recruits for the Air Force, will they be

informed that margarine is one of the principal items of the ration?

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Has the right hon. Gentleman no consideration for British agriculture?

LIFE-SAVING APPARATUS.

Mr. WAKEFIELD (for Mr. EVERARD): asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether, in the case of tactical exercises taking place which necessitate bombing machines flying over the sea, any life-saving apparatus is carried?

Sir P. SASSOON: Yes, Sir; a Gieves safety waistcoat for each member of the crew is always carried, and, in addition, flotation gear for the aircraft when the flight is to extend more than a certain distance out to sea.

Oral Answers to Questions — AVIATION.

PASSENGERS (KARACHI).

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the number of passengers carried to Karachi and beyond by K.L.M. and Imperial Airways; and what proportion in each case were British subjects?

Sir P. SASSOON: The number of passengers carried by Imperial Airways to Karachi and beyond in 1935 was 410. I have no information as to how many were British subjects, or as to the number of passengers carried by K.L.M.

IMPERIAL AIRWAYS (CONTRACT).

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: asked the Under-Secretary, of State for Air whether the contract between the Air Ministry and Imperial Airways that terminates in 1939 can now be given to the House as promised?

Sir P. SASSOON: My Noble Friend arranged last July for copies of the existing agreements to be placed in the Library.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he will disclose to the House the terms of the gentleman's agreement between Imperial Airways and the Air Ministry as to a further contract for 15 years on the supposition that the Air Navigation Bill becomes law?

Sir P. SASSOON: Whilst a provisional basis of agreement has been reached in regard to the Empire Air Transport scheme, I cannot yet give the house the proposed terms of the agreement, as a number of important points are still under negotiation. As indicated in my reply this afternoon to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Perkins) a White Paper will be presented at the appropriate stage.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Before any agreement is entered into, will conditions be embodied to reserve the right to support a proposal for internationalising civil aviation.

Sir P. SASSOON: I should like to see that question on the Paper.

ATLANTIC SERVICES.

Sir HUGH SEELY: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether his attention has been called to the. tentative agreement which has been entered into between the Government of Great Britain, the Government of Newfoundland, Imperial Airways, and Pan-American Airways under which, when Pan-American Airways finally agreed, implementing legislation would be passed; and whether he could explain why the consent of a foreign-owned operating company is necessary for the development of any route within the British Empire?

Sir P. SASSOON: I assume the hon. Member has in mind the negotiations in 1933 to which I referred in my reply on 19th February to the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander). The arrangement then contemplated was the securing of rights in the United States for Imperial Airways in return for the grant of rights to Pan-American Airways in Newfoundland.

Mr. MONTAGUE: Is it right to accept the word "consent" as equivalent to "agreement"?

Sir P. SASSOON: If we want to secure rights for British air services in foreign territory, it will be necessary to give some reciprocal concession in British territory.

NATIONAL AIR SURVEY.

Mr. MANDER: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what progress

has been made with the national air survey as announced by Lord Londonderry in May, 1935?

Sir P. SASSOON: The survey is now virtually complete. The results have been placed before Sir Henry Maybury's Committee.

Mr. MANDER: Will they be made public in any way?

Sir P. SASSOON: I must ask for notice of that question.

PILOTS (A AND B LICENCES).

Mr. WAKEFIELD: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the number of pilots in possession of A and B licences, with the average number of hours flown per pilot for the respective classes of licences, for the years 1933, 1934 and 1935; and also comparative information for America, Germany, Italy and France, with the corresponding types of licences in force in those countries?

Sir P. SASSOON: As the reply contains a number of figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Following is the answer:
United Kingdom.—The number of pilots in possession of current A licences on the 31st December, 1933, 1934 and 1935 were respectively 2,611, 2,980 and 3,353. The figures for B licences on the same dates were 441, 498 and 583.
France.—The corresponding figures were, as regards A licences, 3,248 and 4,107 on 31st December, 1933 and 1934, and as regards B licences, 1,210 and 931 on the same dates. Figures for 31st December, 1935, are not yet available.
Italy.—Information is not yet available except as regards the number on 31st December, 1933, which were 768 and 500 for A and B licences respectively.
United States of America.—The classification is different and comparative figures cannot be given as regards B licences. The numbers of licences comparable to A licences in this country were 5,771, 5,789 and 6,707 on 31st December, 1933, 1934 and 1935 respectively.
Germany.—Comparable information is not available.
It is not possible to give information in any of the cases as to the average number of hours flown per pilot.

RADIO BEACONS

Mr. WAKEFIELD: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what progress has been made in the equipping of this country with radio beacons?

Sir P. SASSOON: It is not considered that the general equipment of aerodromes with radio beacons is yet justified at their present and still experimental stage of development. Certain technical problems, including questions of wireless control, still remain to be solved in connection with their use and international agreement has not yet been reached as to the systems and wave lengths to be employed. There is, however, an installation at Heston Aerodrome, and, as indicated in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate) on 12th February, three new installations of different types will shortly be available for comparative trial at Croydon.

Mr. WAKEFIELD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that radio beacons have been in use in America for the last three years, and is it not time that this country's equipment was brought up to date?

Sir P. SASSOON: I have said that new standards are going to be tried out.

PILOTS, SCOTLAND (MEDICAL EXAMINATION).

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR - WEDDERBURN (for Marquess of CLYDESDALE): asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether, in view of the large increase of commercial pilots in Scotland and the expense and inconvenience to which they are placed in presenting themselves for medical examination in London, he is prepared to authorise the appointment of a medical board for Scotland, either in Glasgow or Edinburgh, to include an approved resident doctor, which board will refer border-line cases to the central board in London?

Sir P. SASSOON: I regret that the number of applicants from Scottish addresses does not justify the setting up of a special board in Scotland. Medical examination in London is ordinarily only insisted upon in connection with the initial grant of the licences, when the candidate's presence in London is in any case necessary, for the technical or flying test, and once in every two years subsequently.

ARMAMENTS (LIMITATION).

Commander OLIVER LOCKERLAMPSON: asked the Prime Minister whether the French Government was consulted before the recent naval pact with Germany; whether any further pact with Germany relative to military reductions is under consideration; whether France will be notified in advance of any negotiations; and whether no further reductions of armaments with Germany will be approved by His Majesty's Government which do not include air forces?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): As regards the first part of the question, the recent naval agreement with Germany was signed on 18th June, 1935. An outline of it was communicated to the French Government on 7th June with an invitation to furnish their observations at an early date. As regards the second part of the question, if by military reductions my hon. and gallant Friend is referring to reduction or limitation of land armaments, no pact is under consideration. As regards the third part, there is no intention to depart from the general practice of His Majesty's Government, which is to keep in as close touch as possible with those Governments most directly concerned in any negotiations that may take place on the subject of armaments. As regards the last part of the question, His Majesty's Government, as has been frequently stated in the House, remain most anxious to secure some reduction or limitation of all armaments. They could, however, give no undertaking to make their agreement to a reduction or limitation of one branch of armaments dependent upon agreement as, regards the reduction or limitation of another.

Commander LOCKER - LAMPSON: What is the good of a naval pact with Germany which does not include a pact relative to air armaments?

The PRIME MINISTER: I would remind my hon. and gallant Friend that a great deal of dis-service has been done to disarmament by trying to get disarmament in every degree instead of only in one. We believe that by getting limitation in naval armaments we have served a very valuable purpose.

Commander LOCKER - LAMPSON: We want limitation in the most important armament, which is the air armament.

Mr. COCKS: Is it not a fact that the French Government disapproved of the pact and, in spite of their disapproval, we signed it.

The PRIME MINISTER: I can only answer for this Government.

Mr. THORNE: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that, if there were a possibility of arriving at a common-sense agreement between France and Germany, the peace of the world would be assured?

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

INSURANCE STATUTORY COMMITTEE (REPORT).

Miss RATHBONE: asked the Prime Minister when the House will be given an opportunity of discussing the report printed on 21st February of the Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee and the decisions of the Government relating thereto?

The PRIME MINISTER: As has already been announced, a draft Order for giving effect to the recommendation made by the majority of the Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee in their report of 7th February on the financial position of the Unemployment Fund will be laid before Parliament in due course. A resolution approving the draft will be tabled and this will afford opportunity for discussion of the whole matter.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Will the opportunity for discussion be before or after 11 o'clock?

The PRIME MINISTER: I imagine before.

SHARE-FISHERMEN (INSURANCE).

Mr. LAW: asked the Minister of Labour, at whose invitation Parliamentary representatives of fishing constituencies attended a meeting at the Ministry on 27th February, to discuss the question of unemployment insurance for share-fishermen; what constituencies were represented; and on what principle they were selected?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead): I presume the reference is to the meeting of the Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee on

27th February, at which several Members of this House were present at the invitation of the Committee for the purpose of discussing with the Committee the question of insuring share-fishermen against unemployment, a subject on which the Committee has been asked by my right hon. Friend to make a report. I will send my hon. Friend a list of these Members, and I should like to add that the Committee will be glad to hear from any other Member who desires to place his views on the subject before them.

Mr. MUFF: Can the Minister say whether any hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Hull was invited to the meeting?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: The Committee have issued a general invitation to any person who was interested to place his views before them?

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the Minister aware that on this occasion more than that was done, and that an invitation was sent to certain specified Members to attend? Will he take steps in the future to see that if Members of Parliament are to be invited it will be a general invitation extended to all Members irrespective of party?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: The Committee have a perfect right to ask any person or any body whom they wish to tender evidence to them. We are not responsible for the particular invitations issued by the Committee in the discharge of their duty. There was, however, a general invitation to any persons interested to attend.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the Minister aware that the matter went much further, that the Committee invited certain Members of Parliament and that only selected people were asked? Will he take steps to see that if Members of Parliament are to be asked in future that the invitation is general in character to all Members of Parliament?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: We can make an unofficial representation to the Committee on the subject, but I do not think that my right hon. Friend would be entitled unnecessarily to interfere with the freedom of a statutory committee.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the Minister aware that the Committee have interfered with the rights of Members of the


House of Commons? Is he further aware that this date was specially selected by the Committee in order that certain people should not attend?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: I am not aware of that, nor am I aware that the Committee have interfered with the rights of Members.

Mr. MUFF: Will the Minister bear in mind that Hull is the premier fishing port in this country?

An HON. MEMBER: No, Grimsby.

STATUTORY WAITING PERIOD (BRADFORD).

Mr. HOLDSWORTH (by Private Notice): asked the Minister of Labour whether any provision exists within the Unemployment Insurance Acts to prevent hardship in respect of the statutory waiting period in the case of those men and women thrown out of work by the recent failure of the electricity supply in Bradford?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: The provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Acts with regard to the requirement of a waiting week apply to all cases, subject to the rules as to continuity of unemployment, and there is no authority to dispense with this requirement in particular cases.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: Is the hon. and gallant Member aware that these men, through no fault of their own, have lost a week's work, suffered grievous hardship, and will he consult the Minister of Health as to whether some special provision can be made to cover these particular cases?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: I am aware of the unfortunate circumstances to which the hon. Member refers, and I will certainly ask my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health to consider the suggestion he has made. I am afraid, however, that under the insurance scheme no action of the kind suggested by the hon. Member can be taken.

Mr. THORNE: Cannot the hon. and gallant Member advise the Statutory Committee that they should recommend a reduction of the waiting period?

Mr. LEACH: Could not the hon. and gallant Member for once in a way waive the regulations? Nobody would find the least fault with him.

Lieut.-Colonel MUIPHEAD: My right hon. Friend has no statutory power to do that.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: Can anything be done through the Unemployment Assistance Board in this special case?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: That is a matter for the board to consider.

AIR DEFENCE.

Mr. WATKINS: asked the Prime Minister whether any subsequent improvements in the methods of defence against aerial warfare, or any other circumstances, have falsified his statement in the House on 10th November, 1932, to the effect that there is no effective method of defence against bombing from the air, and that many bombing aeroplanes will always get through?

The PRIME MINISTER: Methods of combating air attacks are continuously being studied and developed, and valuable progress has been made. It will be readily appreciated that it would not be in the public interest to disclose the lines on which work is proceeding.

Mr. SHINWELL: Are we to understand that the right hon. Gentleman has modified his previous opinion?

The PRIME MINISTER: To answer that would really require a speech in debate.

Mr. THURTLE: Is it still not true that offence is the best method of defence in aircraft?

The PRIME MINISTER: That is a matter much more easily discussed in debate than by question and answer. It is a very difficult and complicated question and, generally speaking, I would rather defer any remarks I have to make till I have an opportunity of making them in debate.

Mr. WATKINS: Is there any truth in the Press statements now appearing that a so-called invisible curtain has been designed which will render air attacks over this country impossible?

The PRIME MINISTER: I could not answer that question, but I should advise every Member of the House to accept with great reserve any statement about secret processes which may or may not have been designed.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

SPEED LIMIT.

Mr. TURTON: asked the Minister of Transport in respect of how many lengths of road in each county he has received applications for his approval of orders made by county councils under Section 1 (4) (a) of the Road Traffic Act, 1934, to make a speed limit of 30 miles per hour operative, despite the absence of a system of street lighting; and in how many cases has he failed to give his approval?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Hore-Belisha): I will send my hon. Friend the information he requires.

Mr. TURTON: Do the figures satisfy the right hon. Gentleman that the intention of Parliament is being carried out and that the inhabitants of villages are being protected?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Yes, Sir.

CHARING CROSS BRIDGE.

Mr. DAY: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is now in a position to make any further statement with regard to the proposed Charing Cross bridge, or whether this proposal has been finally abandoned by his Department?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I asked the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee to review the case for safeguarding the possibility of constructing a road bridge in the neighbourhood of Charing Cross, and I am awaiting their report on the subject.

Mr. DAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that nearly six years ago his predecessor said that a final announcement would be made shortly, and is it not nearly time that some decision was arrived at

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I do not know what was said six years ago, but I have taken practical steps.

Mr. DAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman refer to that question and answer? He will then see.

TRAFFIC LIGHTS.

Mr. ANDERSON: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will arrange to affix to all existing traffic light standards a third face for the guidance of pedestrians, to indicate when to cross the roadway in cases where the ordinary

traffic lights cannot be easily seen when the people are standing on the footpaths?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am prepared to agree to the addition of a third face to any signal where it would conduce to the safety of pedestrians.

MOTOR VEHICLES (IDENTIFICATION).

Mr. SO RENSEN: asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the large number of motor vehicles untraced, causing death or injury, he will consider issuing a regulation making compulsory the use of larger number plates and their more adequate illumination?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Yes, Sir.

Mr. SORENSEN: Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman intends it to apply to all cars manufactured in future

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am proposing to circulate to the motor organisations for their comments, a proposal to increase the visibility of number plates.

ROAD LICENCES.

Captain STRICKLAND: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the expense thrown upon applicants for road licences by objections laid by railway companies on the grounds that they are providing transport facilities in the district concerned; whether the licensing authorities in any instances award costs against objectors who fail to prove their ability to provide suitable facilities; and, if not, whether he will take steps to provide for this to be done?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Parliament gave no power to the licensing authorities to award costs, and I would not propose to invite it to review so recent a decision.

Captain STRICKLAND: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the great expense occasioned by reason of the objections by people not concerned in the actual district in which the licences are required?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: It is for those who are applying for the licences to make out their case, and anyone having an interest in the matter is entitled to appear and to argue his case on the other side. I shall be glad to have specific particulars of any definite grievance.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider amending legislation, seeing that the railway companies are refusing what was given to them for really special purposes?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: If any facts are brought to my notice that will substantiate that remark it would, of course, be my duty to look into the matter personally.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the railway companies are making a practice of opposing every application without any question of principle at all?

ROAD FUND (SCOTLAND).

Mr. THURTLE: asked the Minister of Transport the amount by which payments made out of the Road Fund for Scottish improvements for the period 1933 to 1935 exceeded the payments into the fund by Scottish road users during the same period?

Mr. HORE -BELISHA: I do not imagine the hon. Member means improvements in the technical sense. Total payments out of the Road Fund to Scottish authorities exceeded receipts by approximately £566,000 in 1933–34 and. by,349,000 in 1934–35.

Mr. THURTLE: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that, if Scotland continues to take out of this fund more than it pays into it, the legitimate needs of England and Wales may seriously suffer?

Mr. MATHERS: Is not the fact that this sum is in excess of what is paid into the Road Fund simply an indication of the great need that there is for road expenditure in Scotland, and that it is not a reason for reducing expenditure?

Mr. BARR: Is not the disrepair of the Scottish roads mainly due to English tourists?

Mr. MONTAGUE: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the condition of London roads in relation to the Road Fund?

Mr. GUY: asked the Minister of Transport the total sum paid out of the Road Fund to Scottish local authorities as Exchequer contributions, under the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1929, from the passing of that Act to the end of the year 1934–35?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: £3,417,596.

Mr. GUY: Has the right hon. Gentleman any means of knowing whether the local authorities expend this sum on road maintenance?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I can only say that they are supposed to do so.

ROAD ACCIJENTS.

Mr. BOULTON: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that coroners in several cases have made severe strictures on accused persons for not sounding their motor-horns after hours, causing fatal accidents; and whether he is still satisfied that this law is serving a useful purpose

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am aware of one such case. I am amply satisfied that the law is serving a useful purpose and I should imagine that coroners generally, like other citizens, assist in its observance.

Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: asked the Minister of Transport the number of fatal accidents that have occurred on the new Glasgow-Edinburgh road during the last two years, respectively?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Fourteen in 1935 as compared with 23 in 1934.

Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: To what does my right hon. Friend attribute this decrease?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I should require notice of that question.

LONDON TRAFFIC.

Mr. HALL-CAINE: asked the Minister of Transport whether any steps have been taken to ascertain to what extent the congestion in London traffic is due to the inadequate provision of signposts and the bad placing of street names; and whether he proposes to take any action in this matter?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: There is no means of statistical measurement, but I am endeavouring to obtain the agreement of the numerous authorities concerned.

ROAD SIGNS.

Mr. THURTLE: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will consider making an order compelling all vehicles entering a major road from a side road to stop before effecting the turn into the major road?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I authorised in July last the use of a "Halt at Major Road Ahead" sign which has the desired effect at junctions where a driver approaching a major road from a minor road cannot have a reasonably clear view in both directions of the major road before entering it.

Mr. THURTLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these notices are not on all roads by any means, and will he make his order apply to all roads?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I should prefer to confine it to appropriate cases, because where the visibility is clear, I do not think it is necessary to have a compulsory power.

Mr. MARKLEW: Will the right hon. Gentleman give further consideration to the various practical devices which have been submitted to his Department, permission to experiment with which has been asked by the county boroughs of Lincoln and Grimsby and which, up to the moment, have been refused; and will he give further consideration to the matter?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The hon. Gentleman is probably aware that I have a Department specially concerned with investigating all the processes submitted, and I am credibly informed that our system of traffic lighting is the best in the world.

Mr. MARKLEW: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the particular device to which I refer is different from the ordinary device of the "Stop, Caution, Go" signal, and that it is a flashing device with which the Department of the Minister are thoroughly acquainted, but who, up to now, have refused permission to experiment with it?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I can only accept it if it is better than what we now have, and if the hon. Gentleman will send me further particulars, I shall be most happy to look into them.

Mr. MARKLEW: Thank you.

ROAD SCHEMES (GRANTS).

Mr. EDE: asked the Minister of Transport whether any consideration is given to the comparative wealth or poverty of a local authority in making

grants towards schemes for road construction, road improvement, and river crossing, and, if so, will he state the weighting or other method employed in modifying the standard grant?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Yes, Sir. For the purposes of improvements to trunk roads or of the provision of dual carriageways and cycle tracks, counties are divided into three groups, according to their percentages of weighted to actual population and those with the higher percentages are eligible for grants at higher rates. "Weighted population" is arrived at in accordance with the formula laid down in the Local Government Acts, 1929. The rates of grant vary from 75 to 85 per cent. for trunk roads and from 60 to 75 per cent. for special features.

Mr. EDE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the same process applies to county boroughs, as he only mentioned counties in his answer; and does it apply to river crossings as he did not mention them?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: It applies anywhere where there is a trunk road or where the special features are undertaken.

SPEEDOMETERS.

Mr. SANDYS: asked the Minister of Transport whether in making regulations under the Road Traffic Acts requiring certain classes of motor vehicles to be equipped with speedometers, he will have regard to the fact that there is no legal definition of the term "speedometer," and will so frame the regulation as to permit the fitting of any speed-warning device indicating to the driver that the vehicle is travelling at a specified speed?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I will certainly consider the point to which my hon. Friend refers if and when regulations on this subject are framed.

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTRICITY SUPPLY.

COMMITTEE'S INQUIRY.

Mr. GEORGE HALL: asked the Minister of Transport (1) the terms of reference of the McGowan Committee on electricity distribution;
(2) the date upon which the McGowan Committee on electricity distribution will complete its inquiry; and will he arrange


for a verbatim report of the proceedings to be made available to all interested parties?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I announced the terms of reference of this Committee in this House on 11th July. The Committee which has not yet concluded its work is not in a position to say when it will report. As regards the third point, I would refer to the answer given on 12th December in reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Carnarvonshire (Major Owen). I am sending him a copy of this reply as well as of the Committee's terms of reference.

Mr. EDE: asked the Minister of Transport whether the Committee inquiring into the distribution of electricity has yet completed taking eivdence; when it last met; when it will next meet; and when he expects to be in possession of its report?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The answer to the first part of the question is "No"; to the second part, 28th February; to the third part, that the Committee is in frequent session; and to the fourth part that I cannot say.

Mr. EDE: With regard to the third part of the question, is it the fact that the chairman has gone away for a month's holiday?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: People do that occasionally.

METERS.

Mr. EDE: asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to a recent decision of the courts casting doubts on the validity of a number of meters now installed on consumers' premises by electricity undertakers; whether he has consulted, or been consulted by, the Electricity Commissioners thereon; whether representations have been made to him from any other quarter; and what action he proposes to take?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Yes, Sir; the hon. Member will be aware that a Bill dealing with this matter, introduced by the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. H. G. Williams) received a Second Reading on 25th February and has been referred to a Committee of the Whole House.

Mr. EDE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what his attitude is towards that particular Measure?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Yes, Sir, I will.

Mr. EDE: Will he say now?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: No, I cannot deliver a speech now.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (TELEGRAPHIC ADDRESS).

Lieut.-Colonel Sir WILLIAM ALLEN: asked the Postmaster-General whether he will consider the advisability of registering a telegraphic address for the House of Commons for the convenience of Members of the House?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir Walter Womersley): The address "Commons Wire London" is already registered as a telegraphic address for the House of Commons, but I am glad to have an opportunity of making this fact more widely known.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

SPAIN (BRITISH COAL).

Mr. DENVILLE: asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether he is aware that, in the port of Barcelona, the principal port of Catalonia, the Spanish Ministry of Agriculture has tightened its restrictions on the import of British coal by increasng the quota of consumpton of Spanish coal by a further 6 per cent., making the quota national coal 66 per cent. and imported coal 34 per cent.; and what steps does he contemplate to improve exports of British coal to Spain;
(2) whether he is aware that the Barcelona importer is now fined 20 pesetas instead of 10 pesetas if he fails to import his 45 per cent. quota of Spanish coal and that this practically amounts to prohibition of the import of United Kingdom coal; and whether he will endeavour to negotiate better terms with the Spanish Government?

Captain EUAN WALLACE (Secretary, Department of Overseas Trade): I under-stand that measures of the kind indicated have been put in force. His Majesty's Ambassador has been instructed to take the matter up with the Spanish Government.

STEWARTS AND LLOYDS (PHOENIX WORKS, RUTHERGLEN).

Mr. CHAPMAN: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has considered the representations submitted to him concerning the announcement by Messrs. Stewarts and Lloyds that they are forced to curtail production at their Phoenix Works, in the Rutherglen Division, partly on account of the restrictions now in force on the importation of Continental Bessemer steel; and whether he will consider easing these restrictions so as to safeguard the employment of the 1,200 men involved?

Dr. BURGIN: The statement by Messrs. Stewarts and Lloyds which appears in the Press this morning shows that the transference of work from the Phoenix Works is not due to a restriction of imports of foreign steel.

Mr. CHAPMAN: In view of the southward drift of industry, can the hon. Member inform me whether there is any official channel of information through which his Department become automatically informed of any proposal to shift works in this way?

Dr. BURGIN: That is another question. In regard to Messrs. Stewarts and Lloyds, they have a bed of ore at Corby in Northamptonshire which necessitates this transfer.

Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Is it not a fact that the Press statement to which the hon. Member refers definitely attributes the improvement in the company's position to the tariff policy of the Government, and that the reason for the transfer is primarily to concentrate their works near their ore fields at Corby?

Dr. BURGIN: There is a long statement in the "Times" this morning.

DEBT COLLECTION.

Mr. HALL-CAINE: asked the Attorney-General whether there is any reason why his Department cannot inquire from the registrars of the county courts as to the existence and employment of menacing letters by debt collectors, who have no right to use the forms of law; and what would be the cost of issuing such a circular letter and compiling from it the opinions sent in reply?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): I have no authority to direct such an investigation, and the Law Officers' Department is not equipped to make it. I am unable to say what the cost, would be.

Mr. HALL-CAINE: asked the Attorney-General whether any action to prohibit dunning letters which have the appearance of having been issued under the authority of the county court has been, or will be, taken under the criminal law, which has been recently strengthened for the purpose; and whether he will give the details?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The County Courts (Amendment) Act, 1934, already prohibits such letters. Proceedings will be taken in any case in which there is sufficient evidence that an offence has been committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

SHERIFF COURT, LANARKSHIRE.

Mr. THORNE: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps are being taken to remedy and obviate the delay in the hearing of cases, in particular those under the Workmen's Compensation Act, in the sheriff court of Lanarkshire in Glasgow?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Lieut.-Colonel Colville): My right hon. Friend has been in consultation with the Lord Advocate and the Sheriff on the subject as stated in reply to a question by the hon. Member on 19th February. A report has now been received from the Sheriff, and careful consideration is being given to the steps necessary to meet the existing difficulties.

Mr. G. HARDIE: Is it not a fact that the whole system at present which causes this delay in the courts is because there is no possibility of the courts reaching a decision in a reasonable time? Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman not think that some reorganisation is needed or, if necessary, a new Act of Parliament to deal with the matter?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: No, Sir. The question of delay is under review and the necessary steps are under consideration.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the Minister aware that the sheriff courts in Glasgow and Lanarkshire are glutted with cases of motoring and similar offences, and will he take steps to review the whole question of procedure in the courts?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: A review is taking place, and if the hon. Member will consult the answer to which I have referred he will see that the question of motoring offences enters into it.

INDIA (BOYS, WORKING HOURS).

Miss RATHBONE: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the excessive hours worked by young boys in Bombay hotels and restaurants; and whether any action is being taken in India to bring their conditions and hours of work within the scope of protective legislation?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Butler): My attention has not been specially directed to this question, which is primarily one for the Bombay Government, but if the hon. Member has any facts she wishes to bring to my notice, I shall be glad to make inquiries.

BRITISH ARMY (MECHANISED VEHICLES).

Mr. SHINWELL: asked the Secretary of State for War the effect of the report on the repair of mechanised vehicles, which was prepared in 1930, on the relations between the Royal Army Service Corps and the Royal Army Ordnance Corps; whether co-ordination has been effected; and the nature of the economies secured?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Sir Victor Warrender): The responsibilities of the Royal Army Service Corps and the Royal Army Ordnance Corps regarding mechanical transport, both in war and in peace, have been reviewed in great detail since the Committee, to which the hon. Member refers, reported in 1930. Consideration of the question has been complicated by the rapid increase in the total volume or repair work to be undertaken, consequent on the increasing numbers of mechanical vehicles in the Army, and for

the same reason it is not possible to measure the resulting economies. The hon. Member may, however, rest assured that adequate steps have been taken to avoid overlapping and to ensure that full use is made of all existing repair facilities, with complete reciprocity between neighbouring Royal Army Service Corps and Royal Army Ordnance Corps workshops and, at some stations abroad, common workshops to cater for both services.

LIFT AND PAGE BOYS (HOURS OF WORK.).

Mr. SORENSEN: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the need of regulating the hours of employment of lift boys and page boys is urgent; that many such lads are working late hours in clubs and similar premises; and whether he will now widen the terms of reference of the Departmental Committee of inquiry dealing with the hours of work in unregulated occupations?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME, DEPARTMENT (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): As the hon. Member is aware, page boys and lift boys employed in hotels are included in the terms of reference of the Departmental Committee. As regards the second part of the question my Department has received no information bearing out the hon. Member's suggestion. If he will let me have the information at his disposal, I shall be glad to consider it.

Mr. SORENSEN: Am I to understand that the hon. Member would consider wider terms of reference to include these boys if I give him the necessary information?

Mr. LLOYD: Yes, if the hon. Member can give me information.

ACCIDENT, CHESTER.

Mr. THORNE: asked the Home Secretary whether he can give the House any information in regard to the accident to a youth at the metal window-frame makers, Messrs. Williams and Williams, of Chester; whether he can state the cause of the accident; and whether the machinery in question was properly guarded?

Mr. LLOYD: I understand that this accident occurred on a power press when the guard was not in place, and that the firm were prosecuted and fined £50.

CHINA (CUSTOMS REVENUES).

Mr. VIANT: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make any statement on the allocation of revenues under the political council of Hopei and Chahar, in particular the customs, salt, and postal revenue?

Viscount CRANBORNE: I would refer the hon. Member to the answers which my right hon. Friend gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Moreing) on 10th February, to which I have nothing to add.

ASSYRIAN REFUGEES.

Mr. KEELING: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can assure subscribers to the Archbishop of Canterbury's fund for transferring Assyrians from Iraq to Syria, that any sum raised by the appeal will actually effect the settlement of a certain number of Assyrians, even though the full amount asked for be not obtained?

Viscount CRANBORNE: The matter is in the hands of a committee of the Council of the League of Nations and not of His Majesty's Government. But I can assure the hon. Member that the greater the sum which can be raised, the more Assyrians will it be possible to settle.

Lieut. - Commander FLETCHER: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will give particulars as to the settlement of Assyrian refugees so far achieved; how many have been settled and at what total cost; and whether any estimate has been made of the number which will still remain to be settled

Viscount CRANBORNE: Over 6,000 Assyrians from Iraq have been provisionally settled on the Upper Khabur river in Syria pending their eventual removal to the proposed permanent settlement in the Ghab area. In this latter area no settlement has yet been carried out but preliminary work is now in progress. I have no information as to the total cost to date of the settlement

effected on the Upper Khabur river, but the actual cost up to 30th June, 1935, was, I understand, 2,191,930 French francs and the estimated cost from 1st July to 31st December, 1935, 2,142,000 French francs, giving a total, up to the end of 1935, of 4,333,950 French francs, or approximately £57,786. As regards the last part of the question, the estimates prepared for the League Assembly in September last by the Council Committee which is dealing with this matter were based on the assumption that, in addition to those Assyrians now on the Upper Khabur, approximately 15,000 Assyrians from Iraq would wish to take advantage of the proposed scheme for permanent settlement in the Ghab area.

BRITISH HONDURAS (GREEK DEPORTEES).

Mr. LOFTUS: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has ascertained the reason why a party of Greek nationals were deported from British Honduras in 1933; and whether definite instructions were issued to the captain of the vessel as to where the party were to be landed?

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: The party were regarded by the Government of British Honduras as undesirable immigrants and were duly served with notice of deportation. Execution of the order was, however, postponed at their request, and in the event they made their own arrangements for passages to Cuba. In the circumstances no question of instructions to the captain of the vessel arose. I may, however, add that the Greek Government made a payment in settlement of the expenses involved.

SECRETARY, OVERSEAS TRADE DEPARTMENT.

Mr. GARRO-JONES: I desire to bring to your notice, Mr. Speaker, and to the notice of the House a question of Privilege of which I have given you notice. I shall submit that the constitutional and legal position of six out of the seven Under-Secretaries of State who hold seats in this House and sit on the Front Bench, whose names will be known upon reflection to hon. Members, is one of constitutional and legal invalidity. My case will be based on the contention


which, I believe, I can substantiate, that there exists a seventh Under-Secretary of State in the person of the Secretary for Overseas Trade, who though he is expressly exempted from the provisions of the Statute to which I shall refer, nevertheless, counts to bring the number of Under-Secretaries in the present Government to the excessive number of seven. Though I regret to be the means of bringing before the House so complicated and troublesome a matter, I make no apology for doing so, because all the history of this House shows that the principle involved is one of vital importance, and the House on previous occasions when it has been raised has ever been ready to insist promptly and rigorously upon the enforcement of the Statutes, to which I shall refer. Hon. Members are aware that there is a body of legislation, beginning with an Act of Queen Anne, which places a restriction upon the number of placemen, as they were then described, who might sit and vote in any Parliament in the House of Commons.
I shall not presume to tell the House how important it is that there shall be some limit on the amount of patronage disposable by the Executive among Members of the House of Commons, nor will it be necessary for me in detail to attempt to disentangle the very complicated legislation which governs this subject; but I think hon. Members would be interested if I began by reminding them that the outstanding precedent upon which I shall rely, although there are more recent precedents, is a case which arose in 1864 when Mr. Disraeli, then the Leader of the Opposition, detected that the Prime Minister of that day had by the appointment of five Under-Secretaries, as the number then was, committed a breach of the law as it then stood, and he succeeded in compelling the Government to right the wrong by a succession of drastic remedies. First, the Prime Minister was compelled to call for the resignation of one of the Under-Secretaries; secondly, a Statute of Indemnity had to be passed; thirdly, a Select Committee had to be appointed to decide whether the excessive Under-Secretary should vacate his seat; and, finally, the House of Commons passed the House of Commons (Vacation

of Seats) Act, 1864. which, as amended by subsequent and, cognate Acts of Parliament, is the one which still governs the law on this subject.
That Act permitted four Under-Secretaries. The House will perhaps remember that the Air Force Constitution Act increased the number to five, and the Act of 1925, which split the Colonial Office into two Departments, increased the number permitted to six, which remains the fateful and permitted number of Under-Secretaries under the law and constitution of this land. Not more than six Under-Secretaries, apart from Financial Secretaries and Parliamentary Secretaries, who do not come within the same category, may sit and vote in this House at the same time, and the constitutional and statute law is that if a seventh accepts the office of Under-Secretary of State he is, if not a Member of this House, ineligible for election to it, and if already a Member, his election becomes void. But I think the position which the Prime Minister will have to consider will be a slightly different one, governed by the following provision. If at a General Election more than six are returned their election is not invalidated, but no one of them can sit or vote in the House until the number is brought down to the limit. The penalty for a breach of either of these two provisions is £500 for each day on which the offence has been committed.
I am now ready to address myself to the core of the problem, that is to say, whether the Secretary, Overseas Trade Department, is an Under-Secretary of State within the meaning of the Statutes to which I have drawn attention. In 1918 an Act was passed which, in the exuberance and haste of that year, was rather strangely worded. It read:
Notwithstanding anything in any Act it shall be lawful for the Board of Trade and the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs jointly to appoint a Secretary called the Secretary of the Department of Overseas Trade (Development and Intelligence), who shall discharge the functions both of a Parliamentary Secretary to the Board and a Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Secretary of State.
I think I shall be able to satisfy you, Sir, that though he may be a Secretary, though he may be a Parliamentary Secretary, he is also an Under-Secretary of State. He discharges the functions of an Under-Secretary of


State for Foreign Affairs; he has foreign officials serving under him; on those loftier topics which savour of diplomacy, he uses Foreign Office notepaper; he is able to send for Foreign Office officials, and, what is more important, he is in direct official subordination to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Undoubtedly, therefore, in my contention, he is invested with a status and an authority in the Foreign Office, and if that is not the status of an Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, I am not able to see what other status it can be. I do not rely on any of those more circumstantial factors such as the Foreign Office List in which he is described openly as an Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and other Parliamentary publications in which he is similarly described.
I have here a quotation from a speech which was made by the Attorney-General, who, presumably, will advise the Prime Minister on this point, on 15th July, 1935, when the Lord President of the Council had upon his hands a similar difficulty to that which I am now describing. This is what the Attorney-General said:
There is no statutory provision which prohibits the appointment of as many Under-Secretaries of State to any one principal Secretary of State as may be thought proper, but there have, in fact, been no cases of more than one being appointed who may speak and sit and vote in Parliament—with two exceptions. The first exception—I am not sure that it is an exception—was in 1918, when the Secretary to the Department for Overseas Trade was empowered to be appointed jointly by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and the Board of Trade, and it was provided that, if any appointment was made by the President of the Board of Trade and the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, the person appointed should perform the functions of Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in the Foreign Office."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th July, 1935; col. 829, Vol. 304.]
The right hon. and learned Gentleman then went on to quote another exception of the same class and referred to the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies; and he described those—it is true, with an expression of doubt—as the two exceptions coming within the class of Under-Secretaries of State, thereby implying that there was at least a substantial doubt in his mind as to whether they

were or were not Under-Secretaries of State.
It will be for you, Sir, in your full authority, to decide, not whether my contention is right or wrong, but whether there is such doubt upon this vital question that, in the exercise of your guardianship of the rights and Privileges of this House, it is necessary for the matter to be referred to an appropriate Committee to report upon it.
I want to address one special word through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Attorney-General. Last year the right hon. and learned Gentleman introduced an Act which made the second Act or Bill which was focused upon the Noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Cranborne)—if indeed he be still the Member for Dorset, South—who at any rate must be agog with excitement at the prospect of being included in a third Bill. I want to read from the speech of the Attorney-General on the Second Reading of that Bill a passage which, I think he will agree, was inspired by similar considerations but does not deal with quite the same point as the Under-Secretary of State Statutes were dealing with. The Attorney-General said this:
Some Parliamentarian or some constitutional lawyer may say that the Government have been unduly nervous about this matter, and, if so, I am the nervous person. I hope the House will think that it was the more proper course to lay the matter frankly before it in order that all possible doubts might be removed and that we might be quite sure that the Government will proceed regularly if eventually it is decided to appoint the new Under-Secretary."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th July, 1935; col. 832, Vol. 304.]
Those were the prudent words of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I am now asking him to show himself as receptive to doubts which come to him at the instigation of someone else as if they sprang from his own thought and ingenuity. If he will rise to that plane of impartial consideration of this matter I am convinced that he will be willing to say with me that there are gentlemen on that bench now who have no more right to sit, no more right to vote and no more right to speak in our deliberations than any stranger in the Lobby; and if he is prepared to carry out his full responsibilities in this matter—they are very great responsibilities—I am sure he will not resist my suggestion that the


matter should be referred to an appropriate Committee to elucidate. If that is not to be the case, the sooner we bring before us the whole body of this Statute law and expunge it from the Statute Book as useless, the more honest will be the proceedings of this Parliament. I wish to ask you, Mr. Speaker, for permission to move the Motion which I have placed in your hands.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member was kind enough to send me his notes upon this question, so that he has given me every assistance in enabling me to come to a decision on the question which he has raised. I have also listened with great care to what he has said to-day. The history of the various Acts dealing with the status of Under-Secretaries of State is an interesting one, but I doubt whether it has very much bearing upon the decision which I am called upon to make on the Motion which the hon. Member has submitted to me.
Before coming to that point I would like to say this: This is a new House of Commons. I think it would, therefore, be as well if I explained to them exactly what I have to decide. It is not for me to decide in a case of this kind as to whether a question of privilege has arisen. The only decision which I have to make is as to whether or not the hon. Member who raises the question has or has not made out a prima facie case for a breach of privilege. After giving the matter all the consideration that I can, both before the hon. Member submitted his Motion and since, and after having listened to every word that he has said, I have come to the conclusion that the hon. Member has not made out a prima facie case.
I do not come to that decision from the legal aspect of the case. That indeed is no function of mine. But I do it simply from the House of Commons point of view. Were I to rule that the hon. Member has made out a prima facie case I should be ruling that Parliament when it passed the 1929 Act was wrong and made a mistake. That I do not propose to do. The House will realise that when Parliament passed the Under-Secretaries of State Act, 1929, indemnifying the seven Under-Secretaries, it took the view that the Secretary to the Department of Overseas Trade did not fall within that disqualification. I have no

reason to suppose, nor has anything which the hon. Member has said led me to think otherwise, that Parliament passed this Act inadvertently. I consider also that Parliament deliberately left out the Secretary to the Department of Overseas Trade because in their view he was not an Under-Secretary of State in the true meaning of the term.
I see no reason to rule that Parliament was wrong on that occasion, and in consequence I must come to the conclusion that the hon. Member has not made out a prima facie case that a question of privilege has arisen.

Mr. GARRO-JONES: I shall not pursue the matter, Mr. Speaker, as I understand the correct procedure is for your Ruling to be left as it is; but I desire to say that I shall not be content to leave the matter where it stands now, and that on a further suitable occasion I shall endeavour to show that the House of Commons in indemnifying a certain number of Ministers failed to indemnify another Minister who was never even brought into consideration and whose name was certainly not brought before the House. That is not saying that the House of Commons' judgment is being questioned by raising it now. The judgment that is being questioned is the judgment of those who drafted that Act and failed to bring to the notice of the House the existence of a further Minister who really came within the category of an Under-Secretary of State.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must remember that for an Act of Parliament the responsibility does not rest with the draftsman but upon Parliament itself.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS.

HOURS OF LABOUR.

Mr. SORENSEN: I beg to give notice that upon this day fortnight I shall call attention to shorter hours of labour, and move a Resolution.

INDUSTIRAL WAGES.

Mr. KELLY: I beg to give notice that upon this day fortnight I shall call attention to the wages paid to those engaged in industry and commerce, and move a Resolution.

SEA OF GALILEE (DESECRATION)

Mr. LECKIE: I beg to give notice that upon this day fortnight I shall call attention to the continued desecration of the Sea of Galilee by the operations of the Palestine Electric Corporation, and move a Resolution.

ECONOMIC SANCTIONS AND COLLECTIVE SECURITY.

Miss RATHBONE: I beg to give notice that upon this day fortnight I shall draw attention to the future of economic sanctions as a measure of collective security, and move a Resolution.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Ordered,
That, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 6, any Private Business set down for consideration at Half-past Seven of the Clock this evening, by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, may be taken after Half-past Nine of the Clock."—[The Prime Minister.]

CONSOLIDATION BILLS.

Report from the Joint Committee, in respect of the Coinage Offences Bill [Lords] (pending in the Lords), with Minutes of Evidence, and Special Report brought up, and read;

Report and Special Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the Firearms Act, 1920, and the Firearms Act, 1934, and in connection therewith to amend Sub-section (2) of Section five of the Firearms and Imitation Firearms (Criminal Use) Act, 1933." [Firearms (Amendment) Bill [Lords.]

And also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to make further provision as to the rates or charges chargeable by the Great Orme Railway, Limited, in respect of the tramway and tramroad from Llandudno to the Great Ormeshead in the county of Carnarvon." [Great Orme Tramways Bill [Lords.]

GREAT ORME TRAMWAYS BILL [Lords],

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

PREVENTION OF ROAD ACCIDENTS.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. C. S. TAYLOR: I beg to move,
That this House, while welcoming the substantial reduction in road accidents which has resulted from recent action, urges upon His Majesty's Government the importance of pressing forward all possible Measures to achieve a still further reduction, and asks that a uniform policy of constructing, surfacing, maintaining, signalling, and lighting the principal roads should be progressively pursued.
I feel that I should ask the indulgence of the House for once again having to inflict myself upon it on a Wednesday. I can only assure hon. Members that I did not try to win the Ballot again and that I was greatly surprised at what some newspaper reporters described as my luck. The prevention of road accidents is a problem which must give all of us much thought, much anxiety and very deep concern. The slaughter on the roads is nothing short of a war between pedestrians and motorists. Thousands of valuable lives are being thrown away every year, and these lives are being sacrificed to the gods of speed, to the gods of carelessness and of foolishness. I have here a letter from a doctor who asks me to obtain tickets so that he can hear the Debate in the House to-day. He says:
I am working as a medical officer of health and am interested in anything that kills 6,000 a year, and I should very much like to hear the Debate on that day.
I am a pedestrian as well as a motorist, and being thus experienced in the rights and wrongs of both sides of the case I feel that I am as qualified as any one else to speak upon this particular subject. There is an old proverb which runs, "Keep the common road and thou art safe." I am afraid that in these days of modern transport that old proverb no longer reads truly. I know that a great many accidents occur, and consequently I agree entirely with the action that the Minister of Transport has thought fit to take. I agree with the imposition of the speed limit in built-up areas, and I agree with the orange groves which he has planted in our streets for the protection of pedestrians. At the same time I do believe that the Minister has not gone anything like far enough.
I do not think that speed, in itself, is the cause of all accidents. It is just as easy to kill somebody at a speed of 20 or 30 miles an hour as at a speed of 60 miles an hour. To my mind, the main reason for accidents to-day is the state of the roads. I am sure hon. Members have noticed that in wet weather the accident figures go up by leaps and bounds, and those who are motorists know the reason why. Unless one has had experience of a skidding car one cannot realise the feeling of complete helplessness which a skid produces. Hundreds of thousands of pounds are being wasted by local authorities on the construction of roads the surfaces of which are quite unsuitable to present-day traffic. Roads can be built with non-skid surfaces. I have in mind a road recently constructed between Pevensey and Bexhill. Any hon. Member who has driven on that road will agree that it is possible to produce a non-skid surface. I understand that the Minister has no power over local authorities in regard to the building, construction or maintenance of roads. He is able to make suggestions and recommendations, but the last word, I am informed, rests with the local authorities.
It is vitally important that some central outhority should have control, with power to enforce uniformity of construction. This end could be attained, either by setting up a central highways board or by giving more power to the Minister himself. As I have said, hundreds of lives are being thrown away each week on the roads, and action ought to be taken immediately. I believe the Government would receive the gratitude, not only of pedestrians but of motorists, if they took instant action in this matter. It is interesting to note that on the road between London and Birmingham, in the short distance of 110 miles, there are 23 different types of road surface. I regard that as a significant fact. A central highways board such as I have suggested would be able to bring pressure to bear on local authorities so as to secure uniformity of road surfaces throughout the country. I am aware that the setting up of such a board would mean a complete change in the transport policy of the Government, and I know that the Government are very sceptical, and rightly so, about major changes in the administration of a Government De-


partment. But if this change can be proved to be for the better, the Government ought to give it careful consideration.
I know that there are lesser causes of accidents on the road, apart from that with which I have just been dealing. I believe that the elimination of blind corners and hump-backed bridges and the introduction of a uniform system of banking, would tend to reduce the number of accidents. Another great cause of accidents is to be found in the presence of trams on the road. To my mind trains and tramlines are, in these days of modern transport, prehistoric. They are a danger not only to the motorists but to the users of the trams themselves. It is said that it would he impossible to deal with the numbers of people requiring transport if we had not trams, but I believe that to be a fallacy. A central highways board such as I suggest would have power to order the abolition of these travelling menaces—as I regard them—and in such a serious matter as this, I believe that local authorities ought to be relieved both of their responsibility and their power. That power ought to be invested either in a central body or in the Minister himself.
Leaving the question of the roads themselves and their construction, I wish to make a few remarks about policing, lighting and signalling on the roads. Unfortunately, too many of the traffic lights are placed so high as to be above the motorist's line of vision. Indeed they seem to have been designed more for the days of the old coach than for the days of the modern low car. Another serious point which I would impress on hon. Members is the fact that when the green light gives the motorists the right of way, a pedestrian is permitted to cross, if there is a pedestrian crossing, in front of the motorist, thus endangering not only his own life—about which probably none of us would be particularly concerned—but also the lives of many others. If the motorist is penalised for crossing against the signals, the pedestrian also ought to be penalised for acting in a foolhardy manner. I hope that the system of automatic signalling will be extended and that greater penalties will be imposed upon motorists and pedestrians alike who ignore the regulations.
In addition, I would suggest an extension of the system of traffic wardens.

In some of the south-western counties they have traffic wardens and I believe that that method of traffic control is far more effective than control by police constables. The police constable may be adequately and satisfactorily trained as a police constable, but very often he does not know much about driving, has probably never driven a car in his life and is little acquainted with the actual problems of road safety. I am bound to say that the constables whom I have come across have appeared to be more anxious about finding some small technical offence with the possibility of conviction and fine and perhaps future promotion than about anything else. I do not think that so much attention should be paid to small technical offences which do not involve any danger to life or limb and the people who are responsible for the direction of traffic ought to know something about the driving of a car and about the conditions which the driver of a car has to face to-day.
I consider that the lighting of many main roads is inadequate. I notice that the new lights which are being put up are unshaded and produce a glare with which, in wet weather, it is very difficult for the motorist to compete. Apart from that fact, I submit that a shaded light gives better illumination over the road than an unshaded light. I do not, however, dwell upon that point because I understand that an hon. Member has a scheme which he hopes to be able to place before the Minister during this Debate. I come now to the drivers of the vehicles themselves. I think the driving test instituted by the Minister has proved to be a revelation. It is a simple test, yet the figures show that many people have proved incapable of passing it. I offer my thanks and I am sure other hon. Members will join me in doing so, to the Minister for having protected us from the prowling menaces which might have been let loose upon our roads but for the test. I hope that the principle of picked mobile police will be extended and also that those men will not be permitted to wear plain clothes. I look upon that method of detection as underhand and un-British in character. A policeman is a policeman, and should be looked upon as a policeman.
I am afraid that the use of the red letter "L" on vehicles in which learners


are receiving instruction does not provide the necessary protection for other people on the roads. I do not know whether it would be possible or not, but, if it were possible, I should like to see introduced a system of dual controls in cars used for this purpose so that, should the learner lose his head, the instructor would be able to take control and prevent accidents. I have a letter here which I received from a very irate colonel who tells me that when he was out driving the other day a woman learner lost her head, pressed the accelerator instead of the brake and, to use his own words, "harpooned him." I have heard of other cases of learners treading upon the accelerator instead of the brake. It is an easy thing to do, and I think we ought to take every possible step to guard against those dangerous practices. It may be said that that method of instruction would be unduly expensive, but I submit that when lives are at stake, when people are being slaughtered daily on the roads, the question of expense should be regarded a little more leniently than it would be in cases where lives were not at stake. I hope that this year the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not see fit to raid the Road Fund, and that it will be possible to introduce such new regulations as may help in reducing the number of fatal accidents.
I know that the remarks which I am now about to make would not meet with the approval of the Liberal Opposition if the Liberal Opposition were present. I come to the question of the drunken motorist. I am not a fanatic, and I am not a teetotaller but I realise the tremendous danger which the drunken motorist may be to the community. I submit that the drunken motorist must be suppressed, and that the severest penalties ought to be inflicted on him. To my mind he ought to be treated as a criminal lunatic. It has been suggested by medical authorities that even a moderate amount of alcohol may influence a driver to do some rash thing. I am afraid I cannot go quite as far as that. I bow to the authorities, but I would submit that a moderate amount of alcohol has no more effect than some severe shock or excitement, and that if a man is moderate in his ways, it will not affect him when he drives a motor-car. But I affirm that the drunken motorist, as

opposed to the motorist who drinks, should be treated in the most severe manner possible.
Sometimes I hear that tests are imposed upon motorists who are thought to be under the influence of drink, and I am alarmed for my own safety, because I hear that the suspected persons are subjected to tests of tongue-twisters. I find the greatest difficulty when I am sober in saying:
Round the rugged, rock the ragged rascal ran,
and I am sure that many people who are accused of being drunk would, when asked to say something like that, find very great difficulty in saying it. I therefore ask for a medical officer to be called in immediately in every case in which a person is accused of being under the influence of alcohol. I shudder to think of the effect it would have on the constituents of any Member in this House if he were asked to say some tongue-twister and could not get away with it. I hope the medical profession may be called in to give advice in such cases.
When I talk of vehicles, the modern motor car is, generally speaking, a fairly safe machine, but I cannot say that about all of the second-hand cars which are able to be bought for quite a small sum at the present time. Many of them have inadequate braking systems, inadequate tyres—I know that that is dealt with under certain legislation—and inadequate steering, which cannot be seen, and I feel that a system of periodical inspection might be devised, with the help of the existing road organisations, and that a periodical inspection of vehicles of all types would help on reducing these dangerous weapons upon the roads, which legally can be referred to as motor cars.
As a one-time cyclist, I know the dangers which these people undergo when they have no rear light. Most reflectors, I submit, are inadequate, and they are even more inadequate during foggy or rainy weather. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will consider bringing in an amendment to the existing law and make it compulsory for all vehicles, including cycles, to have satisfactory rear lighting. I suppose that the cyclists will probably grumble and complain of being put to extra expense, but if a cyclist is foolhardy enough to risk his own life and the lives of other people, the Govern-


ment should force him to recognise his great responsibilities. The State looks after mental defectives and mental cases, and in the case of cyclists without rear lights, I feel that the State should also look after would-be suicides.
A fortnight ago, speaking in this House, I advised a greater degree of technical training among juveniles, and I pressed for a greater use of films in the schools. I feel that the use of films for the development of road sense might be encouraged in all the schools and that it would help to diminish very much indeed the number of road accidents. I believe that not only motorists should be trained, but pedestrians also. I am sure that we have all heard people say, when they have had an accident which may not perhaps have endangered or harmed life or limb, "It is all right; I am insured." I feel that this callous and dishonest attitude should be discouraged and that the only way of discouraging it is to cause the motorist to pay the first £10 or £20 of the damages in any major accident in which he may be involved, because I feel that if the driver knows that his own pocket is to be affected, he will be a little bit more careful than he is at the present time. Industrial companies which employ large numbers of transport workers reduce accidents to a minimum, and I have seen figures which prove that the accident graph in the last 10 years has been going down and down. I feel that this is due to the discipline which these companies exercise over their drivers. As Burke said in this House many years ago:
Early and provident fear is the mother of safety.
In conclusion, I hope that His Majesty's Government will, though it involves a complete reversal of their present transport policy, consider the suggestion I have made of setting up a Central Highways Board, with, of course, the present Minister of Transport as President, or else give to the present Minister more power, so that he can deal effectively with the very obstinate local authorities with which he has to compete to-day. If these steps are taken, a greater degree of safety will be experienced by all road users, pedestrians and motorists alike.

4.38 p.m.

Mr. SANDYS: I beg to second the Motion.
I have followed the speech of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. C. S. Taylor) with the greatest interest, and in particular I was interested to hear his remarks about his doctor friend who was anxious to obtain a ticket to attend this Debate on a subject which accounted for the deaths of 6,000 persons a year. My hon. Friend did not explain to us whether his doctor friend feared motorists were entering into unfair competition with the medical profession. In seconding this Motion, which asks for continued and, if possible, increased efforts on the part of the Government and the Ministry of Transport for the prevention of road accidents, it would not be right or proper for any fair-minded Member of this House not, first of all, to pay a tribute to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport. No occupant of that great office has shown greater energy or a sincerer determination to reduce the casualties on the roads than has my right hon. Friend, and I am sure that we can rely upon him to continue his efforts unabated.
The few remarks which I wish to make I will divide under three heads: Firstly, education in road behaviour; secondly, traffic regulations; and thirdly, road construction. With regard to education in road behaviour, I believe that that is the kernel of the whole problem. The Ministry of Transport figures—I think the latest available are for the year 1933 —show that 89 per cent. of all fatal accidents on the roads were due to wrong road behaviour. That fact in itself justifies the most earnest consideration of that particular aspect of the question. A great deal has been done already to educate children in the matter of road behaviour, and I think it is the success of the efforts which have been made in that direction in the schools, in London particularly, which encourages one to hope that further efforts of that kind will lead to further beneficial results.
This instruction was started in the London elementary schools in 1918 and has continued ever since. The number of fatal accidents in Great Britain more than trebled between 1918 and 1934, while in the same period the number of fatal accidents to children of school age in London remained pretty well constant. That is a very significant fact. I have a graph here which shows very conclusively what


the effect of that teaching in the schools has been. The casualties among the children of school age in London has, as I said, remained pretty constant from 1918 to 1934, but in the provinces—outside London, in other words—where this education was only really begun in 1929, the figures show a steep and rapid increase right up to the year 1930, since which there has been a steady decline. I ask hon. Members to consider those figures and to give to them the weight which I think they deserve, as supporting the benefit and advantage of concentrating as much as we can on education in proper road behaviour. The National Safety First Association have been doing valuable work in the schools for a number of years past. They were given a grant by the Government a year or two ago to carry out propaganda work, and I submit to the Minister that the experience which we have had of their work in the past would justify another grant in the near future to carry it on as they did before.
I have dealt with the question of the children. I think the time has come—and I know the Minister is already considering the matter—to develop the education of adults. It is not nearly so easy, I know, because children are easily assembled in their class rooms and can be educated in road behaviour in that way, but there are possibilities of educating adults, and the Minister has already adopted one of these courses, which was to print and circulate the Highway Code. It has undoubtedly done a great deal of good, but it is not enough to circulate the Highway Code once and then to leave it. It is essential that people should be constantly reminded of its contents in one form or another. It could be done, perhaps, in the form of large posters. I have heard that a big boot organisation was prepared to include an extract from the Highway Code dealing with pedestrians' obligations in every pair of boots that they sold. I have also heard a suggestion that every bicycle sold should have in the saddle bag a leaflet containing the duties of cyclists on the highways.
I do not wish to advocate any of these specific suggestions, but I ask the Minister and the House to consider whether there are not a hundred different methods

which could be employed to carry on the work which was begun by the printing, at a cost of £30,000, of the Highway Code. We want to see that that effort is not wasted, but is carried on. In cinemas there lie infinite opportunities. I understand that the Safety First organisation has made available ten-minute films suitable for adults and that they have found no difficulty in obtaining from cinemas permission to show them free of charge during the regular programmes. I am sure that films on this important subject could be made sufficiently palatable and interesting for the general public agreeably and readily to accept them as a small dose of civic education with the rest of their entertainment. I support my hon. Friend's suggestion that it is important the Ministry should look into the possibility of having a system of dual control in the cars of motoring schools. The red letter "L" on a car is very little protection to other motorists. It is no more protection than would be the letter "W" put on a car driven by a woman to protect us from the lapses of the fair sex.
With regard to traffic regulations, I would like to say a word about the uncontrolled pedestrian crossing. The controlled pedestrian crossing, with certain exceptions, works admirably, and I congratulate the Minister on his perseverance and his assurance in his own judgment when he introduced those regulations. They were subject to the gravest criticism and ridicule which have proved to be entirely unfounded. I suggest to the Minister that some of the dangers of the uncontrolled crossing might be obviated. It is not easy for the pedestrian properly to assert his rights on the uncontrolled crossing. He has to step out on to the highway before he has a right to stop the oncoming traffic. One does not like to put one's foot under an oncoming lorry in the hope that it will stop.
With the improvement in brakes on motor vehicles it becomes increasingly difficult for the pedestrian to use his own judgment as to whether an oncoming vehicle is likely to be able to stop. Motors can now advance at a great speed and stop quite suddenly, but the pedestrian does not know until the vehicle is on the dotted line whether it is going to stop. There is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty. I would ask the Minister to


consider whether it would he possible to have a dotted line 15 yards back from the uncontrolled crossing, and to make it a rule that the pedestrian should not be entitled to stop traffic which had already crossed that line, and on the other hand that when he steps on to the crossing, the traffic should be obliged to stop 15 yards back at this line. Such a regulation would give the pedestrian a feeling of increased security and re-assurance.
Most of us who are motorists have experienced the difficulty and awkwardness which arise from the fact that when driving in a restricted area goods vehicles are obliged to slacken to 20 miles an hour, not because they are unsuited to travel at 30 miles, but merely because of the particular form of body which they have. I would ask the Minister to consider whether he cannot, as far as possible, restrict the category of goods vehicles which have to slacken to 20 miles an hour because, if one vehicle has to reduce its speed to 20 miles, particularly in a restricted area where the streets are usually narrow, it necessarily involves the slowing down of other traffic to 20 miles, resulting in constant overtaking, which is what eventually leads to accidents. Could not my right hon. Friend include vehicles which have similar chassis and similar pneumatic tyres and brakes to those of the ordinary private car? I have watched with interest the development of the rails which are being put up at traffic junctions, and I believe that they are serving a very good purpose. I hope that the Minister will use his efforts to secure that they are of more general application. I thought when they were originally put up that the public would resent them and consider that they were an unnecessary obstruction to their freedom. I have, however, watched at Hammersmith Broadway where these rails have been erected, and I find that the public welcome them. People stand for hours on end leaning up against these rails. I was thinking the other day, when I was attending a Debate in another place, that if, instead of the low, nobbly and rather sharp bar which is provided for hon. Members to lean against, we were provided with the same facilities as those provided in Hammersmith Broadway, we would be more tempted to attend Debates in that august assembly.
Another matter that comes under the heading of traffic regulations is the pursuit by policemen of offenders. I do not suggest that the police are not mindful of their obligations or that they are not as careful as they can be in carrying out their duties. I think, however, that the country was very shocked when they learned of that unhappy accident which occurred a short time ago and which has been the subject of so many questions in this House. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary told me in reply to a question that the matter was under inquiry at the moment, and I do not expect a reply from my right hon. Friend this afternoon, but I hope that, in conjunction with the Home Secretary, he will do what he can to impress upon the police that, while it is their duty to pursue and arrest offenders, whether they are ordinary criminals or offenders against the road regulations, it is their first and foremost obligation to remember that the arrest and pursuit of criminals is of far less importance than securing that the life and limb of the public shall not be endangered.
Turning to my third head, which is road construction, I was glad to see the extension and development of the dual carriageway system. I was a little alarmed when I saw the obstruction in the centre of the Great West Road first erected, because I found at once that the whole speed of traffic was seriously reduced. I understand, however, from an answer that my right hon. Friend gave a little time ago, that it is intended to widen the Great West Road. I only hope that that is a principle of general application, and that where these central barriers are erected in order to create dual carriageways the Ministry will recognise the necessity for widening the road. The system of cycle tracks is gradually but very slowly developing. I hope that before long we shall have these tracks on all the main arterial roads. It would be well for my right hon. Friend to give some reassurance to cyclists for whom, after all, these tracks are being built. They seem to be persistently, through their organisations, opposed to this innovation, and I understand that their fears are based on the fact that they have some apprehension that a tax may be placed on cyclists. The proper working of these tracks will depend upon the co-operation and the friendly acceptance of the system


by the cyclists, and it would be well if my right hon. Friend could give them an assurance that it is not the Government's intention, because of the building of these tracks, to impose a tax upon bicycles.
Another question that concerns us in road construction is the banking of corners. So many accidents occur at corners. They do not occur mainly because cars do not see each other coming round a corner, but because owing to the construction of the roads, particularly of minor roads, with their steep camber, it is virtually impossible for a motorcar without reducing its speed unreasonably to keep to the correct side of the road in going round a corner. It will be argued by some hon. Members that to bank roads on the system of a race track would be to encourage "speed merchants" and lead to an increase in accidents, but I do not hold that view, because I feel that the object of corners is to alter the direction of the roads. It is not to slow down traffic and I do not think it would be a disaster if roads were so well constructed that you could maintain an equal speed round a corner, as you do on a straight road. Therefore, I earnestly urge my right hon. Friend to consider the introduction of the system of banking in the construction of new roads.
The last item I wish to deal with is signposts. Sometimes accidents occur at cross roads owing to the fact that while a driver is trying to make out the signpost another car comes along one of the cross roads and there is a collision. There has been notable progress with signposts in the last few years, but the only signpost which is of any value, in view of the speed of motor traffic, is the signpost erected somewhere before the cross roads are reached, so that the motorist knows before he arrives at the cross roads which turning he has to take and can give his undivided attention to watching for other vehicles. That system has been introduced to some extent already, but I suggest that the type of signpost erected is not very suitable. The whole object of a signpost is to enable a motorist approaching cross roads to see quickly which is the road he has to take. The majority of these new signposts bear a large figure which is the number of the road on the map—A32,

for example—and underneath, in quite small letters, the name of the place to which the road leads. The majority of motorists in this country do not travel about with maps looking out for the numbers of roads. They know where they want to go to, and they expect to be able to see a name easily on the signpost. If in future the name of the place could be written large and the number of the road smaller it would meet the convenience of the public.
In conclusion, I would say that the large amount of revenue which accrues from motor users is ample proof of the important part which road communications play in our national and economic life. We must see to it—it is our task and the Minister's task to see to it—that the development of road communications is accompanied by a decrease and not by an increase in loss of life and limb to the community; but I am sure that so long as the present imaginative and energetic holder of that high and responsible position continues to occupy it there will be no stinting of public expenditure or of Government effort in tackling vigorously this vital problem of road safety.

5.5 p.m.

Dr. SALTER: I am glad to be able to join with the two previous speakers in congratulating the Minister on having secured some reduction in the accident and death rate on the high roads; but having said that I want to go on to say that I think he has committed many sins of omission and commission, whereby the death rate has not been reduced as much as it might have been Everyone agrees—and not least the Minister, I am sure—that the death rate as present is far too high. Parliament has imposed a speed limit of 30 miles an hour in built-up areas, and at this time of day I suppose all will agree that speed is a decisive factor in many accident cases but Parliament has also given the right hon. Gentleman considerable powers in connection with the modification of the speed limit under certain conditions. He can abolish the speed limit in certain places and under certain conditions, or he can, on the application of local authorities, make a lower speed limit for particular areas, and we have to complain, and complain very bitterly, of his action in both these respects.
The Minister has de-restricted roads in defiance of local opinion, in defiance of the opinion, expressed on more than one occasion, of great local authorities who are presumed to know their own business. For example, he has overridden the town councils of Edinburgh, Glasgow, Manchester, Birmingham, Worthing, Swindon, Birkenhead, Wallasey, Gillingham, Stoke-on-Trent, and many other places. He has decided that the de-restriction shall take place even though those authorities, through their highways committees, have made up their minds that such de-restriction would be dangerous. In spite of the fact that the recommendations of the highways committees have been confirmed by the town councils he has abolished the speed limit in certain streets, with the result that in a number of towns unnecessary accidents are taking place on the roads so de-restricted. Many authorities have applied to him to have a reduced speed limit of 15 to 20 miles an hour in selected areas or in selected streets—narrow streets in little villages, narrow high streets in more populous places—where there has been a very high death or accident rate, and in nearly all those cases he has turned down the application and unnecessary fatalities have occurred.
There is a specially shocking case at Wimbledon. Wimbledon Council applied to the Minister for a speed limit of 20 miles an hour in the main street. The Minister held some sort of an inquiry and his decision has not yet been announced, but the Wimbledon Council understand—and I also understand, from certain sources—that that application is also to be turned down, and that the Wimbledon Council will be treated precisely the same as most other councils have been treated when they have made like applications. Both the local authority and the population in that area are extremely indignant. The local papers are filled with protests and with letters to the editor in connection with the matter; and last Monday week, so I see from the local Press, is now to be known as "Black Monday" in Wimbledon, because three accidents occurred in one hour, in all of which motor vehicles were involved, and six adults and three children were either killed or injured.

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Hore-Belisha): On this road?

Dr. SALTER: On this road.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: It has not been derestricted?

Dr. SALTER: I am instancing this as an urgent reason why the lower speed limit should be granted by the Minister on the application of the council, and, as I have already said, we understand, and the council understand, that that application is not to be granted. On that comparatively small stretch of road during the last three months no fewer than 11 accidents have occurred, apart from the ones I have referred to, in all of which death resulted, and that is why the refusal of the Minister time and time again to accede to the demand of the local authority seems to me to be extremely reprehensible, and the Minister must be held responsible if this accident rate continues. What is the good of the Minister urging the public to be more careful unless he himself is prepared to do his share in reducing the dangers? When competent local authorities, advised by expert advisers, have come to the conclusion that a reduction in the speed limit is urgently required in a particular area, and the Minister, after a casual inquiry through an officer, turns down such an application, we can only hold the Minister responsible.
I did not rise to deal with that aspect of the question, but with an entirely different matter in which I happen to be particularly interested. The hon. Member who moved the Motion referred to the drunken motorist and said drunken motorists must be suppressed. That will be the universal opinion. Everybody will agree that a man who is obviously intoxicated and is in charge of a motor car is a man who must be dealt with severely by the community. But I want to speak of what I regard as a very much greater danger, and that is the "sub-intoxicated" motorist. The British Medical Association, requested by the Minister to report on the subject, improvised that term to indicate a person who, though not obviously under the influence of drink in a legal sense, is none the less physiologically under the influence of drink, and whose powers are correspondingly prejudiced—whose driving capacity is prejudiced by that physiological condition. The Minister has had expert advice given to him on this point at his own request, but has


done nothing in the way of taking steps to bring the extreme danger of taking alcohol before driving or when driving before the motoring public. He has done practically nothing in the matter, and in that regard, again, I consider his action most reprehensible.

Mr. C. S. TAYLOR: What would the hon. Member have the Minister do?

Dr. SALTER: I was going to make suggestions. Merely negative criticism is valueless. One of his predecessors, the right hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. Herbert Morrison) received a deputation when he was in office. It was an extremely influential and authoritative deputation. I do not suppose it would be possible to get together a more representative and more powerful scientific deputation to any Minister of the Crown under any circumstances. That deputation comprised the late principal Medical Officer of the Ministry of Health, or the previous Local Government Board, a dozen professors of medicine, surgery and pathology in the different London hospitals and universities of this country, and men distinguished in physiology, in experimental research and in pathological research, and it included the Director of Research under the Industrial Diseases Research Board, and so on. These authorities came to the Minister and represented to him, giving him specific evidence, that the consumption of even quite small quantities of alcohol, before or during driving, led to a considerable reduction in the efficiency and capacity of the driver and made him more of a danger to the general public than he otherwise would be.
A successor to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hackney was the present Minister of Education, and he also received an extremely influential deputation on the same lines. It was composed of men who were in absolutely the first rank in science and discovery. Its spokesman was the senior physician of St. Mary's Hospital, a man who was president of the Medico-legal Society and who had been a toxicological expert at the Home Office. He represented the case also. Nothing was done. Then the present Minister was pressed on the matter last year. He was asked in the House whether he would receive a deputation on similar lines. He stated

that he was appointing a committee, and that he was asking the British Medical Association, as the most authoritative medical association in the country, themselves to investigate the subject and to report direct to him. The Association appointed a committee composed of extremely eminent people, whose judgment and opinion ought to command respect in any assembly. They were 15; they were not rabid teetotalers or fanatics, and only four of them were known to be total abstainers. They produced a report in which they confirmed the views expressed by the two previous deputations.
What happened? What did the Minister do? He did not do anything. He asked for their advice, but he has taken no action upon it whatever and, what is more, he has not only refused to give publicity to the conclusion of the committee but he—

Mr. SANDYS: What action would the hon. Gentleman suggests?

Dr. SALTER: I am coining to that. The hon. Gentleman must allow me to develop my case. The right hon. Gentleman not only failed to give any publicity to the conclusions of that committee, but he slighted their conclusions and, in effect, poured ridicule on them. When he issued the Highway Code, he printed a clause which advised special caution to drivers against travelling when affected by alcoholic fatigue. That statement was perfectly right in itself, but directly afterwards he gave a Press interview in which he stated that he had added the word "fatigue" in order to soften the blow. What did he mean by that? Soften the blow to whom? To the trade, to the vested interests, to the selfish man who cares nothing for the public safety and only for the gratification of his own appetite? By talking in that way, all that the right hon. Gentleman did was to depreciate the results and the conclusions of that committee. A large number of us, and of the public outside, think that in the view of the overwhelming weight of evidence on this matter, the Minister ought to take further steps, and to take them immediately.
Before I develop my argument further, I must state what the conclusions of the committee were. The British Association


Committee state that they had concentrated on the effects of the amount of alcohol insufficient to produce the state commonly recognised as drunkenness, because it believed that it was highly necessary in the public interest to draw attention to the effect of quite small amounts of alcohol on the driving capacity of persons in charge of motor vehicles.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: And the walking capacity of pedestrians?

Dr. SALTER: Pedestrians as well. Most certainly on both classes of road users.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: That depends to some extent upon the individual.

Dr. SALTER: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member is a much greater authority on this subject than the expert scientific committee which studied it.

Mr. C. S. TAYLOR: Perhaps he has had practical experience.

Dr. SALTER: Yes, I should not be surprised.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: The hon. Member is quite wrong. I am not yet addicted to that.

Dr. SALTER: A Government document has been issued, I forget whether by the right hon. Gentleman's Department or by the Home Office, analysing the cause of a number of fatalities and fatal accidents on the road, and endeavouring to attribute the precise reason for them. In that document it is, of course, pointed out in how very small a proportion of the total accidents drunken drivers were responsible or were concerned. That is true, limit the analysis of that White Paper in this respect is valueless, because it, takes no cognisance whatever of what the British Medical Association calls sub-intoxication, that is to say, the taking of relatively small quantities of alcohol before driving. Such people are certainly not in the legal sense "under the influence," but are none the less affected in their capacity to drive.

Mr. SILVERMAN: I have had some experience of these matters. I thought that the legal definition "driving while under the influence of drink"—not drunkenness—was sufficient to cover the case that the hon. Member is describe-

ing, in which a person's driving faculties are impaired by the drink which he has taken, although he is not legally drunk. I thought that the present law covered that.

HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Dr. SALTER: That interruption, and the support which it received from hon. Members opposite, proves conclusively that hon. Members are entirely unfamiliar with the report of the committee of the British Medical Association, which the right hon. Gentleman suggested last year had received sufficient publicity from every one of the members of the committee. The point emphasised by the committee is that a quite small quantity, an ordinary dietetic quantity, a reasonable quantity which is in itself insufficient to produce the obvious changes, none the less do affect all those delicate neuromuscular co-ordinations and capacity to drive, which are vital if a driver is to be safe.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: How does that apply to pedestrians as well?

Dr. SALTER: I must be allowed to continue. After considering all the evidence, and giving references to the multitudinous investigations and researches that have taken place on the point, the report of the committee of the British Medical Association concludes:
There are serious objections to the consumption of alcohol, even in small amounts, by anyone who has to drive a car.
Hon. Members will find those words in paragraph 9 of the recommendations.
The committee gave numerous illustrations and, if the House will permit me for one minute, I will indicate one of the most important. If a person is driving a motor car on a highway, and he sees another car approaching from the opposite direction, or a pedestrian stepping off from the side-walk, he has to act on the instant, using either the accelerator or the brake, or manipulating his steering apparatus. However desperately anxious he may be to avert an accident, the driver cannot do anything instantaneously. A certain interval has to elapse between his brain telling him of the approaching obstacle and the movements of his muscles operating the various parts of the machine, and that definite interval is known as the reaction time. That reaction time is one-fifth of


a second, in the average person, and during that interval the driver can do nothing, because that time is occupied in very complicated nervous processes such as the transition of impulses along the. nerves of the arm or the leg as the case may be.
That has been conclusively shown. There is no dispute. It is not a matter of opinion but of fact that if a man takes a single glass of beer, a nip of whisky or a glass of port, his reaction time may become two-fifths or as much as four-fifths of a second. I can give any hon. Member who challenges me on this point chapter and verse of confirmatory experiments on the subject that have been carried out all over the world.

Mr. C. S. TAYLOR: On a point of Order.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Dennis Herbert): The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. C. Taylor) is, I know, a new Member, so perhaps I should warn him that if he is wishing to interrupt the argument of the hon. Member for West Bermondsey (Dr. Salter) that is not a point of Order, but if he has a point of Order that he wishes to make as to the procedure of the House I will, of course, hear him.

Mr. C. S. TAYLOR: I merely wished, with great deference, to rise to a point of Order. The hon. Member has claimed that other Members have interrupted him in the course of the Debate. At the beginning of this Parliament Mr. Speaker did bring to the notice of hon. Members the fact that he hoped that these debates would be debates, and not set speeches, and that he hoped that they would be taken in the form of debate.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Dr. Salter.

Dr. SALTER: I will proceed with my argument. I was indicating that, although the reaction time of a normal person is one-fifth of a second, the consumption of a small quantity of alcohol will increase it to perhaps four-fifths of a second. In an extra fifth of a second, a car travelling at 50 miles an hour proceed for 14 feet, 6 inches. If the car is going at 30 miles an hour, it will proceed 9 feet. Every hon. Member knows that in motor accidents and motor fatalities the difference between life and death is measured

by inches and not by 14 feet and 9 feet. That of itself should be sufficient reason for anybody who desires to be a safe driver not to touch alcohol before or during his driving.
The committee add a number of illustrations and sum them up by saying that, for example, judgment of distance is affected. The normal method and machinery for estimating distance depend upon the movement of the eyeball, small movements, either converging or diverging; diverging for a distant object and converging for a near object. Those small muscular movements are translated into mental judgments. If that mechanism is affected in any way, the person becomes an unsafe driver because he is unable to judge accurately. Recent experiments also show that quite small quantities of alcohol cause a reduction of the area of the field of vision, and a number of other effects—probably 10 or a dozen—are produced by even small quantities of alcohol which render a driver less efficient than he otherwise would be.
At least half-a-dozen nations have recognised the importance of these facts. They have been brought to the right hon. Gentleman's attention by the committee which he himself asked should be appointed, but he has done nothing in the matter. What are other countries doing? A number of other countries bring this matter prominently before every driver and every applicant for a licence or for the renewal of a licence. In Germany, long before the Nazi regime, every applicant for a driving licence was handed a card—I have one here—on which he was warned not to touch alcohol, even in small quantity, before he started to drive; and not only was he handed that card, but he had to sign a book in the police president's office declaring that he had received the card and had read and understood it. It may be said that that is Germany, but a number of other countries have done the same. thing, and have adopted almost the precise wording which the German scientists suggested to the police administration in Berlin when the system was first introduced. In the Canton of St. Gall, in Switzerland, and in three other cantons, the same procedure has been adopted. The Toronto Highways Board has utilised the German wording, and has made the warning much more stern. In Manitoba no person is allowed


to drink in a vehicle on a public highway, or open in a motor car any vessel containing alcoholic liquor. In this case, for a first offence, the penalty is suspension of the licence for six months and imprisonment without the option of a fine; for a second offence, suspension for 12 months with imprisonment, and for a third offence suspension of the licence for life and forfeiture of the vehicle to the State. In Prince Edward Island a man in charge of a car is deemed to be under the influence of liquor if he has consumed alcoholic liquor within a period of five hours before driving—

Sir PATRICK HANNON: May I ask you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for the guidance of the House, whether the line of argument which the hon. Gentleman is pursuing is really in accordance with the terms of the Motion? The Motion asks that a policy of constructing, surfacing, maintaining, signalling and lighting the principal roads should he progressively pursued. I did not understand that we were discussing this afternoon the influence of alcohol upon road accidents. Is not the hon. Member pursuing a course of argument which is out of conformity with the text of the Motion?

Mr. AMMON: May I point out that the hon. Member has not read the whole of the Motion, which asks that all possible measures for the reduction of accidents should be taken? I submit that my hon. Friend's observations came within that expression.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member for West Bermondsey is in order.

Dr. SALTER: I had full regard to the terms of the Motion before framing my speech. In Norway there is a severe penalty if any driver of a motor vehicle, public or private, consumes any alcoholic beverage within six hours of driving, because it is recognised that the full effect does not pass off until after approximately that period; and the warning is worded almost identically in every one of the countries I have mentioned. The notice issued in Berlin runs as follows:
(1) The arduous and responsible calling of the motor driver makes it necessary for him to abstain completely from all alcoholic beverages…. both before and during his work.
(2) The smallest quantities of alcohol are injurious for the motor driver. It is a wide-

spread error that small quantities have no deleterious effect. On the contrary, they cause at first an increase of self-confidence, followed by premature fatigue, and thus weaken his capacity for swift discrimination and reaction in the presence of danger.
A large proportion of motor accidents are undoubtedly due to the consumption of quite small quantities of alcohol. That is the conclusion reached by the British Medical Association Committee, who termed the condition, not intoxication, but sub-intoxication. In the judgment of many experienced experts on this subject, at least 25 per cent. of the fatalities and accidents on the roads to-day are due to the fact that the drivers concerned have taken a small quantity of alcohol, and are, though not recognisably intoxicated, sub-intoxicated. This view is not merely one that is held by scientists. I notice that several London stipendiary magistrates have endorsed and called attention to it, including those at Bow Street and the South Western Police Court, while at least four coroners during the last few weeks have emphasised the point, and even the "Times," in a leading article the other day, said:
As things stand at present there would appear to be no absolute safeguard for the motor driver but total abstinence.
One motor journal, the "Light Car and Cycle Car," summed up an article by saying this:
Every motorist should realise that even the smallest quantities of alcohol have deleterious effects upon his driving.
In view of this overwhelming weight of evidence from every quarter, I submit that it is the plain duty of the Minister of Transport to make these facts known and to bring them as prominently as he can before the attention of all motorists. If, in view of these facts, which cannot be challenged, any motorist still persists in taking alcohol before he drives, he is a potential murderer. Indeed, I would go further and say that, if the Minister fails to give sufficient publicity to these important facts, then he must be held responsible, and he becomes a potential murderer also.
All along our great arterial roads to-day, and along the new by-pass roads, there are being erected every week great new road-houses and new licensed premises, for the deliberate purpose of attracting motorists there to drink while they are on the road, with the result of


rendering themselves more dangerous than they otherwise would have been. I myself have seen, at a road-house on one of the main roads leading out of London, as many as 200 cars at a time parked outside, and there was a notice stating that there was special parking provision for cars. I have looked inside and seen rows of men, who were just about to go on to the road and drive, drinking whisky and other alcoholic beverages of all kinds. And then people are surprised that there are so many accidents on the roads. The only wonder to me is that there are not more accidents, having regard to the circumstances.
I want the Minister to issue special notices, leaflets and cards, as is at present being done in so many other countries of the world, to every motorist when he applies for a licence or for the renewal of his licence, so that he shall not be ignorant of the facts, as a great many are, including many people in this House at the present time. In the second place, T want the Minister to make more use of the British Broadcasting Corporation in advertising these facts to the whole general public, pedestrians as well as motorists, so that the pedestrian as well as the car driver may realise that, if he takes alcohol and then ventures on a road where there is heavy traffic, he too is less efficient and less capable of taking care of himself than he would have been had he abstained.
I want the Minister to do something more. There are frequent danger notices and warning notices to motorists put up on the main roads of this country, and on side roads, but apparently, under the law, it is possible to erect almost unlimited numbers of places where drinking facilities are provided. I think that the Minister ought also to put up notices, just before such premises are reached, warning motorists that these places are dangerous to them and to the community. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Yes; I have not the slightest doubt about that. Speaking, not as a debater, but, I hope, from a detached point of view, as one who tries to take a scientific view of life and of conduct, I say that I have no doubt whatsoever that the enforcement or acceptance of this view as to the danger of the consumption of small quantities of alcohol before driving would do more to

reduce the total number of fatal accidents on the roads than all the measures which the Minister has adopted up to the present time.

Sir P. HANNON: Does the hon. Member suggest to the House that at these parking places and refreshment inns on the roadside drivers of cars have been seen taking alcohol?

Dr. SALTER: I have seen it myself, and so have you.

Sir P. HANNON: The only observation I would make on that is that the hon. Member has made a most slanderous attack on a very important body of citizens.

5.44 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: It is so very seldom that we get an opportunity in this House of talking about the Ministry of Transport and its activities, that I think we owe a debt of gratitude to the Mover of the Motion for giving us such an opportunity on the present occasion. I think it is rather regrettable that it should have been used by one hon. Member as a means of getting in a very fine anti-drink speech, because, although there is a great deal in what he has said, every word of it is applicable to the man in the street as well as to the man in the motor ear.

Dr. SALTER: Hear, hear!

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: Therefore, if we are to have notices outside all these road-houses, there ought to be a notice outside every public house pointing out that that public house is near a road, and that consequently there is danger if anyone takes a drink there. There is, however, another point with regard to fatigue and the speed of reaction. I do not know whether the hon. Member is aware of it, but, without any drink at all, the reaction time is greatly increased by very long periods of driving and consequent fatigue. May I draw attention to the fact that a wireless set inside a motor car is a most amazing means of keeping a person awake when driving long distances? In the case of people who are overworked in lorries, and are kept on the road much longer than is really good for them, a splendid way of keeping them alert would be to provide thorn with a wireless set.
My hon. Friend who seconded drew attention to one point that I think the Mover forgot and that was the importance of "super elevation" or "banking" In Scotland it is done but here some of our local authorities have the most astonishing view on the question. I do not know if the Minister has lately passed over the Guildford by-pass but in many places it is banked the wrong way, making it exceedingly dangerous for all traffic on that road on a frosty day. My hon. Friend proposed that we should have more films on education. The last film that came out seemed to me to create a good deal of class prejudice. If you remember, a rich man after a jovial evening runs over a signalman going home. I had much rather it had been a tired lorry driver running over a dowager Duchess. I was horrified to hear the hon. Member who has just spoken attack the Minister of Transport for being a pro-motorist. I had never noticed that he was a pro-motorist. Of all the anti-motorist Ministers that there have ever been he is the biggest.

Dr. SALTER: I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman misunderstood me. I did not use any such language.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: By inference the hon. Member did. He was accusing the right hon. Gentleman of not allowing a 20 mile speed limit in various localities. I have no doubt that the hon. Member will get a good mark with his local press, but I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not accede to the requests which come from all over the country that we shall have the old 10 and 20 miles speed limits. It is true that in the towns that we live in we want a 10 mile an hour speed limit, but everywhere else no limit at all. I am one of those still unrepentant opponents of the 30 miles speed limit. I still believe that, if you drive a motor car, you ought to be responsible for life and limb whether you are driving at five miles an hour or at any speed The 30 mile limit has given many people the idea that they can go 30 miles an hour. I profess to being a fast motor driver and I drive big cars. When I come to a town, I drive at a speed that I think is reasonable and safe. If on a rainy day in a big car I am going at what I think is a correct speed, I get hooted at by Baby Austins because I am not going fast enough. It

is an intolerable position. It only shows that, when you introduce these artificial limits, they are always wrong. A 30 miles limit is often much too fast and it is very often ridiculously slow at three o'clock in the morning.
I ask my right hon. Friend to be very careful what he does in these regulations. He had such a golden opportunity with his crossings in London. If he had introduced them slowly, if he had taught London that his beacons and crossings were holy ground and that if you were on them you were safe, the position in London would have been very different from what it is. But they came in overnight. We found them everywhere and no one took the smallest notice of them. You see people crossing, not over the crossings but ten yards further down. If you wait, you never know whether to cross or not. The motorist, I believe, tries to play the game but the pedestrian does not. My right hon. Friend has had the greatest publicity in his office that it is possible for the Press to give him. He has used it much too much from the point of view of the anti-motorist. In Berlin they have got their accidents down because they held a perfectly even balance between blame of the motorist and blame of the pedestrian. We shall not get accidents reduced seriously until the Minister introduces real legislation to prosecute the dangerous pedestrian. There are many more dangerous pedestrians in London than motorists. You cannot say at what speed you are driving dangerously. If you are driving at seven miles an hour near the kerb and someone jumps out and kills himself, is that your fault?
There are many points I should like to deal with, and I should have liked to have given the Minister a good wigging for being so anti-motorist, but we have so little time and there are so many who wish to speak.
I should like, however, to ask the Minister as to the scope and the dimensions of his five years programme. The whole country is anxious to hear that. I should also like to ask if he has devised any formula for the lay-out of new roads. Only along such lines of development, not in stopping the circulation of traffic but in making it orderly and safe, does the future safety of transport lie.

5.51 p.m.

Mr. SALT: I wish to associate myself with what the opener of the Debate said in congratulation and appreciation of the Minister of Transport. He has been the first to prevent the steady increase of accidents. They grew from 138,000 in 1926 to 238,000 in 1934, and now for the first year we have actually had a decrease. I am sure that the efforts he adopted have been successful and will continue to be so, but, with increased traffic, it is obvious that we are likely to yet again see a rise in accidents unless something else is done. I wish to deal with what I believe can be effected by the use of modern lighting. It is beyond doubt that a great many accidents are entirely due to darkness. I believe that 10 per cent of the fatalities and injuries could be reduced by this method. That would mean a reduction of 700 lives and 19,000 injuries per year. I propose to bring evidence which I think bears out that bold statement. I have taken it from official sources—the National Safety First Association, the Public Works and Transport Congress of 1935 and three documents of the Ministry of Transport. I find that in September, 1932, during the 11 hours of daylight we had 175 deaths and in the four hours from eight till midnight there were 106 when in comparison with the average rate of deaths we should have expected 50, a possible saving of 56 lives. I have purposely omitted the hours from midnight till six a.m. since the report of the Ministry in 1933 mentioned that the fatalities between those hours are 0.4 per hour and they cannot make any practical difference to my comparison.
In October of the same year during the 12 hours of daylight there were 131 deaths and in the six hours at night 136. That would mean a. saving of 68 lives. In eight hours of daylight during November there were 95 deaths whilst in ten hours of darkness we get no fewer than 204. We have to remember that the amount of traffic during those last hours is very much less than during the peak hours of the day. I could give figures for July, August and December giving similar results, the latter showing that no fewer than 110 lives could have been saved. Considering this question from other angles I take the accidents affecting public vehicles. These cover practically the same amount of mileage in summer as

in winter yet we find that there is an increase of no less than 30 per cent. of fatalities in the winter. Measured by petrol consumption we find that when all petrol driven vehicles are taken into account there is an increase in December as compared with June of no less than 70 per cent.
But I find that I get much more conclusive and comprehensive data from America. Taking a road on which traffic passes at the rate of 1,500 per hour they find that the accidents in the dark are never less than three and a-half times those during daylight. They contend also that if you doubled the lighting von halve the accidents. The most important statistics of all deal with a group of States with a population exceeding 40,000,000—something similar to our own. They give what I think is a very fair illustration. They deal with the hours from five p.m. till eight p.m. summer and winter, and these are the results that they get: in the summer 505 deaths, to which they add 10 per cent. for winter road conditions, and therefore we could expect in winter 555 deaths on the same average. The actual deaths were 1,025,470 more than would have been expected except for lighting conditions. As regards accidents these are on the same scale and were 13,130. They add to that 1,313 for the 10 per cent. due for road conditions making 14,000 odd, and the actual accidents in winter are 26,650, or 12,000 more than might have been the case. Various other experiments are compiled. First we have a group of cities upon which was spent 11 per cent. more on lighting and find that their fatalities are reduced by 25 per cent. Upon another group of cities they spent less on their lighting and found that deaths and accidents went up immediately. A further experiment was light the road from Washington to Mount Vernon by modern methods and accurate statistics of accidents were taken from 1st July and 1st December. In the following year, at the same period, they had the roads unlighted and then found that the rate went up from 2.87 to 7.02 per million vehicle miles. There are many other particulars which I have acquired, all showing exactly the same relative results. They are so conclusive, that it is obvious that something should be done by way of better lighting with the object of re-


ducing the present number of the deaths and accidents.
In the Departmental interim report on Lighting, issued last year by the Ministry of Transport, the cost of providing and running a system of modern overhead lighting is stated to be from £300 to £400 per mile, and to include the necessary roads the annual cost would be some £3,500,000. A good deal of the cost would be reduced if we undertook a major scheme, as we have not yet given our manufacturers an opportunity of doing anything in a mass production way. It is usually mentioned that the cost par unit in the case of electricity is ¾d., and I know that that is not the necessary cost, and that it can be very much reduced. Technically and scientifically; proper lighting of our roads is undoubtedly possible. There are already roads all over the country where there is not the slightest need to use headlights. In fact you need no lights on your car at all, and you can see everything as easily during the night as during the day. I am not sure that being dark on each side does not almost make it safer owing to the fact that your mind is concentrated on the road more than in the day time. Whether we should use gas or electricity is a matter to be decided by local conditions. Both methods have proved satisfactory, but I believe that the electric sodium lamp is probably better than the electric discharge lamp, which is much talked of at the present time. The former has a more pleasant light than the latter.
In connection with the reply to a question I put to the Minister yesterday as to whether there were any statistics regarding accidents before a road had been lit, and of the number which took place afterwards, he asked if I could give particulars of any roads upon which such lighting had been made, I suggest that there are at least two in Birmingham which have recently been floodlighted, one at Hall Green on the Stratford Road and another at Wylde Green. But I am sure that there is no necessity to go away from the City of London to find any amount of opportunities. A small experiment was tried on the Victoria Embankment, when it was found that the accidents were reduced from 17 to five. It is obvious that we want a major experiment, and that is why I suggest that the Ministry should consider whether they could not make the experiment of

lighting the road from London to Birmingham, or, if that would entail unnecessarily high expenditure, from London to St. Albans, and/or Birmingham to Coventry, all of which are heavily vehicled roads. Having taken particulars of the accidents during daylight and at night, they should light the road properly, and see whether the figures which I have given are justified.
In considering the expenditure we ought to take account of what we save on the other side, apart from that which is all-important, namely, the saving of life and the prevention of injuries. In 1933 the motor companies in this country paid no less than £18,000,000 in claims, and the Life and accident insurance companies paid approximately £7,000,000—some £23,000,000 in all. If we could bring about a substantial saving in the number of accidents, it is obvious that we should have a very considerable saving in expenditure. I submit that to have the main roads properly lit would make them more valuable to the community. Some of the high peak loads now running during the daytime would tend to use the roads at night, and as the increase of traffic is brought about we should probably find that the roads would be capable, without widening, of carrying considerably heavier loads, and consequently in that way would effect a definite economy.
This scheme or any other that would reduce highway accidents is primarily of importance to pedestrians. The figures show that it is the pedestrian who suffers the most from accidents. The second section to gain would be the cyclists. The drivers of motor vehicles experience fewer accidents by far than the other users of the road.
Anything that we can do to make our highways more valuable and safe would undoubtedly benefit all members of the community. If we had a war at the present time causing the number of accidents and deaths that occur on our roads, I am sure that we should be prepared to spend almost anything to stop it. We have in one way something worse. A war comes to an end, but the tragedy of road accidents goes on continuously. I ask the Minister to think very seriously whether it is not possible to use the value that science has given us, and in some way reduce still further the accidents on the road.

6.8 p.m.

Mr. R. ACLAND: The recommendations that have been put forward in this Debate divide themselves into two classes. One is the improvement of equipment, roads, lighting, motor vehicles and so on, and the other is the elimination of human error. The hon. Member for Yardley (Mr. Salt) has made out a very strong case indeed for an experiment in the improvement of equipment along the lines he suggested, and later on I shall say a few words about the importance of really controlled and carefully observed experiments, the importance of which I am not sure has been grasped by the Ministry of Transport. I want to speak more about the elimination of human error. Everything that has been said by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. C. S. Taylor) and the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Wallasey (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon) in favour of improved roads and the provision of road cycle tracks is open to the answer, that a great number of accidents take place in broad daylight on perfectly straight and open roads when traffic conditions are not heavy. The Member for Norwood (Mr. Sandys), who seconded the Motion, spoke about advertising and publicity through posters, but actions talk louder than posters. The one thing which has been said in criticism of the Minister is, that he is always doing something new, and that every month there seems to be some line upon which he is working. Such criticism has the advantage that it keeps people talking, and the more they talk the more they think. [Laughter.] Obviously that is open to comment. It is open to argument that the improvement which has taken place has been less due to the actual measures which the Minister has taken than to the very great deal of talk that he has rightly provoked. It is important that the Minister should continue to try new things in order to provoke talk and discussion and to keep the subject in the public mind.
I will suggest one or two things that might be done to a greater extent than is the case. I wish the Minister, together with his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, could decide whether they are really going to enforce the 30 miles an hour speed limit or not. At present at eight o'clock in the morning, you can see

two police cars standing in a little bend of the road on the Embankment. This is not the concern of the Minister of Transport, but of the Home Secretary. It is the broadest and widest surfaced road in London, and anybody who exceeds the speed limit is caught, but anyone who exceeds the speed limit on far more difficult roads, such as the Edgware Road, can be certain that no police car is on the job. It is harder from the police point of view to catch those who are exceeding the speed limit on these roads. This brings the whole system into derision, becomes an intolerable imposition, and drives motorists to distraction. I hope that the Minister will bring in the speed limit, and that at the same time he will persuade the Home Secretary to see that the limit is enforced.
I wonder whether sufficient attention has really been given to the figures which have come to light as a result of the analysis concerning accidents. I do not quite know what they are worth. Of the accidents analysed in 1933, the number of accidents of which drivers were the cause was equal to the number of accidents attributable to pedestrians, about 3,000 each, but two years later, when 1,500 accidents were analysed, the number attributable to drivers had gone down to half the number attributable to pedestrians. Does this mean that the Minister's campaign of publicity is succeeding in relation to the drivers to a greater extent than in relation to the pedestrians? I believe that it does, but whether these figures are reliable or not, an normous number of accidents are attributable to pedestrians. One must say that with a word of caution, and this applies to the answer given by the hon. and gallant Member for Wallasey to the speech by the hon. Member for West Bermondsey (Dr. Salter) on the question of drink, when he said that the question of drink applies equally to pedestrians and motorists. After all, the motorist is the man responsible for producing the prime cause of the problem on the road. The pedestrian is not brought in there. Therefore, the motorist, having been brought in, must be free from the suggestion that he has done any act to limit his powers to prevent accidents. The same argument cannot be applied to the pedestrian. I would be prepared to sacrifice the small amount of intoxicants of which I might partake before or while


driving, if I felt that other motorists were doing the same, and that the experiment was being carefully watched to see whether it was being justified. Whereas it may be proper to bully, restrict and prosecute the motorist who has brought this thing into being, it is not so possible to bully, restrict and prosecute the pedestrian. Measures taken in relation to the pedestrian, to whom half the accidents are attributable, must be more of the nature of guarding and protecting than of bullying and restricting.
If one looks at the figures, some lines of action are suggested. A very large proportion of these accidents are caused to school children. Some months ago I wrote to the Police Department in New York and asked what had been their experience in relation to school children. They replied that a sustained programme of activity was initiated on plans approved by the Police Commissioner in the City of New York and the Superintendent of the Schools in January, 1933, and the effect of that sustained programme is rather remarkable in that accidents to school children, which prior to 1933 had fallen by 1,400 in three years, after the campaign was inaugurated fell by 4,000 in two years. That is not all. What was done for the children seemed to have some effect upon adults. The number of adults injured, which had fallen from 7,500 in the previous three years, fell by 14,000 in the next two years. The campaign, as far as I can make out from the papers I received from the Police Department in New York, consists of two parts—first, the provision of play streets. Play streets can never be an alternative to playgrounds, but as we cannot get playgrounds for want of funds we should endeavour to inaugurate play streets, which are blocked at one end, with no through traffic, and a speed limit of 10 miles for any traffic allowed. The streets could be made attractive with bushes and facilities for play. Is not that worth trying until we can get the playgrounds? A very important feature of the report from New York is the schoolboy patrol. That is an experiment which might well be tried here:
There is a selected group of boys, distinguished by insignia and with delegated authority to see that children avoid accidents on their way to and from school. I am proud to say that over 600 schools have patrols and that over 14,000 boys are rendering faithful and conscientious service.

Our organisation has not had reported to it one fatality at a school street intersection guarded by schoolboy patrols.
Could not a system of that kind, which has worked so well in America, be attempted in this country?
A large number of accidents are caused by pedestrians running into the roads. The statistics show that the number of accidents from this cause is very high. Such accidents arise through people running along the side streets, across the pavement and into the roadway of the main streets. Would it not. be possible to make an experiment in one or two London boroughs of putting railings on the pavement in line with the pavement of the side streets? That would be no inconvenience to the pedestrian. He would only have to go one or two yards round. Such a railing would mean that he would cease running and he would be reminded of the danger which confronted him. I understand that it has been done in some cases. There is always a rush at the end of school hours, and there is a great amount of running on the part. of school children. Could there not be railings put opposite all main roads where the children run into them from school?
Another prolific cause of accidents results from passing in front of stationary vehicles. Very largely these accidents are caused by passing in front of omnibuses. People alight, walk in front of the omnibus and then attempt to cross the road. Would it be impossible, experimentally, to try the effect of putting some device, preferably of rubber, projecting from the front of the radiator or the mud-guard of the vehicles, with a notice: "Look right." Such a notice would catch the eye of the pedestrian, and if there was a rubber device it might catch his body. The effect of that would be that it would act as a. safeguard by causing him to look to the right before going in front of the vehicle and crossing the road. The experiment might be made with the London Passenger Transport vehicles, and the result might be that people would adopt the same
precautions in going in front of any stationary vehicle.
Has the Minister wholly despaired of the effort made some time ago by one of his predecessors in trying to induce pedestrians to walk to the left of the pavement and to walk to the right of


the highway where there is no pavement? You will never see a tramp walking on the left side of the road. He has been walking so much that he knows. Yet the ordinary pedestrian thinks that the left side is correct. All over America there are notices: "Walk on the left." The corresponding notice in England should be: "Walk on the right," because in America the driving wheel is on the left side. Another important factor in regard to accidents is the direction in which the pedestrian was walking immediately prior to the accident. It is of enormous importance that people should walk towards and facing and seeing the traffic before they set out to cross the road.
I should like to congratulate the Minister on what he has done and also on one thing about which he has been criticised, and that is that he is always trying something new. It is important to keep on trying something new, so that this matter may be kept in the public mind. I hope he will continue to do that and that the results may be carefully watched. It is with that object in view that I have put forward these suggestions.

6.22 p.m.

Sir ERNEST GRAHAM-LITTLE: I propose to confine my remarks entirely to the subjects of approved scientific tests for motor drivers. I do so because when the Traffic Act was in Committee I sought to introduce an Amendment that the requirements for the granting of a licence should include some of these tests. The Minister at that time refused the Amendment, because he said the tests were not practical and not of any proved value. He made an acknowledgment later that he had been mistaken in that statement. That was in 1934. The position has greatly improved since 1934, and there is no question now that scientific tests are available and should be applied.
It seems to me very extraordinary that the long experience which has been gained by the medical profession in the case of factories has not been taken more advantage of in this very cognate subject of road accidents. There can be no question about the scientific similarity of the two groups of accidents. The same rules apply to both. Where factory accidents have been investigated by competent medical and psychological investigators, measures have been introduced

which have proved so successful that in certain instances the ratio of accidents has been diminished by more than 50 per cent. Road accidents come into the same category. A very notable remark was made by the chief inspector of factories, three years ago, when he said that in their investigations the mechnical factor had been dealt with so completely that no prospect of improvement was to be hoped for from further consideration. He said that perhaps 10 per cent. improvement might conceivably be hoped for from the improvement of mechanical devices, and that what was wrong was the human factor. It is the human factor which has been neglected, to our very great detriment. I hope that the Minister, who has made such a great contribution to new ideas on the subject of accidents will investigate that aspect of the case.
There has been talk this afternon of the causes of accidents and the analyses that have been made of those causes. When one attacks any scientific problem the facts which govern the cause must be accurately observed, and it is that method of observation which is so sadly lacking in the reports of causes of accidents. Who investigates those causes Usually a police officer and sometimes unhappily a coroner. There is very seldom any real expert who is concerned in looking into the preliminaries of the accident and particularly the preliminaries of the human error and the human disability. The police are not specially fitted to carry out that observation, and usually the facts which are observed by the police are not sufficiently accurate to serve as a basis on which to build scientific theory and practice. The categories of cases which from time to time the Minister of Transport has published as explaining accidents in themselves betray a lack of imagination and knowledge in the explanation of the accident. In a series of 4,000 cases which were examined for that purpose there were three categories of causation. One was illness. Only 17 persons out of 4,000 were said to be suffering from illness; surely an obvious underestimate. The second category referred to those who were said to be under the influence of "drink and drugs," and the third category those who were asleep while driving. There are many other causes at work in the production of accidents, and I would plead for a more


thorough investigation of the causes. It is not right to leave the investigation of intricate scientific problems to the amateurish efforts of the police, however sincere those efforts may be.
The facts brought out by the selection tests which have been in use in this country for 10 years and in many other countries for even longer periods have been so striking and the experience gained by the application of the tests has been so valuable that it is wrong to say that they are still in the experimental stage. One fact that has come out is that there is undoubedly a section of the public who arc "accident prone." That unfortunate phrase has been used in regard to a certain group of people who are said to be more liable to accidents than any others. That fact has come out in many observations. Two cases worthy of notice occurred in the United States. A very careful investigation showed that 50 per cent. of the accidents occurred in a group of less than 20 per cent. of workmen, so that 20 per cent. of workmen were responsible for 50 per cent. of the accidents. Another observation in regard to a larger number of individuals gave results very similar. This means that something like one quarter of the population at any given time is definitely subject to "proneness to accident," and the importance of finding that out is very great.
The accident-prone person can be identified by suitable tests almost at once. By means of that discovery great savings can be effected, because a person who is obviously, definitely and irrevocably accident-prone could be informed of that fact and he would not need to go on with his preparation to be a driver. It has been objected that the application of tests would reduce the number of drivers on the roads to an undesirable degree. This is not so: a very satisfactory feature of the tests is when the driver is made aware of the cause of the accident as revealed by examination the cause may be removed and the driver is cured. It is reported from the United States that out of 181 persons who were found to be accident-prone, after selection tests had been made and suitable treatment applied, more than 50 per cent. were perfectly able to go on driving.
Many objections have been taken to the application of these tests. Let me

examine a, few of them. In a. recent leader in the "Times," the delightful "fourth leader" which many of us enjoy every day, there was a statement that many men were absolutely unfit for driving and the suggestion was further made that if psychological tests were applied on any large scale people would become hypochondriacs, which would result in a large proportion of the population becoming so scared as to be accident-prone for that very reason. That is an inaccurate forecast. It has not happened in cases where the tests have been applied. Where a driver has become aware of his disability he can often get rid of it; and far from being a deterrent the test is a help. The question has been asked: How are you going to apply these tests on a large scale? They are not difficult of application. I will not describe them as they are far too technical, but an ordinary motor business can produce among its employés persons who are perfectly capable of carrying out these tests on a reasonably satisfactory basis after 14 days' training.
The tests themselves are simple and the apparatus required is equally simple. The most expensive equipment is called a full "battery test." The cost of this is about £60, and the individual duration of the test need not be more than half an hour and six individuals can be treated in one hour by trained persons. The cost is obviously small, because the fee charged by the body of relatively inexperienced persons would not be large arid would come well within the ambit of the fee charged for the licence. There is no difficulty about the cost, and if there were I do not think that we should consider it. In cities where the tests have been applied, it has been found that the training of a driver is reduced in duration because he has taken the selection test. In Berlin a large company operating many workers found that on an average 120 hours were saved by those drivers who had taken these tests before becoming drivers. Another interesting feature is that the training produces far better drivers, while the saving in wear and tear of vehicles is so pronounced that in one company it was estimated, after these tests had been in use for some years, that there had been a saving to the company of 1,500,000 francs per year.
Surely it is possible to introduce, even if only on an experimental basis, these


tests for a portion of the persons concerned, and the suggestion has been made that we should take lorry drivers first, who I understand constitute about one-third of the persons employed in the industry and who are to a very large extent "accident prone." The experiment might well be made with this group first. The objection that it is not feasible can be met by the remarkable experience in the United States Army during the first years of the War, before they entered into the War. The United States Army is a scientifically run institution and they employed what they call "intelligence tests" on a very large scale, to about 1,500,000 soldiers. These tests were applied to all those who were to enter into the War. They provided an extremely valuable indication, and it was feasible even on that enormous scale. I must give the House the actual experience of the company to which I have already referred, the General Transport Company, which operates about 5,000 buses and trains in Paris. The company was founded in 1921, and almost immediately after its foundation it took up the question of psychological tests for its drivers. Of course it was done tentatively at first, in a small way, but it was in full operation in 1924, and by 1927, the whole of the personnel had been selected by psychological tests.
What is their experience, as recently published? Whereas the number of vehicles other than those operated by this company in Paris has grown very much more than the number operated by the company, the two sets of figures are still possible of comparison. There was an increase in 10 years from 1923 to 1933 of 218 per cent. in vehicles on the roads in Paris, other than the vehicles owned by the General Transport Company, and this increase of 218 per cent. was accompanied by an increase of 155 per cent. in the number of accidents recorded. In the case of the company there was an increase of 30 per cent. of vehicles during the same period but with a decrease of 37 per cent. in the number of accidents, and this notwithstanding the fact that the speed limit was increased by 45 per cent. and a greatly increased mileage was run. At the same time there was an enormous improvement in the running costs of the whole concern. The saving effected was in the neighbourhood of

1,500,000 francs a year. The interesting feature of that experiment was that after the selection by psychological tests had been made of drivers, the number of drivers who were found to be undesirable as drivers after taking to the road was only 3½ per cent. The selection tests had operated so successfully that the wastage was only 3½ per cent., whereas before the tests were instituted the wastage was more than 20 per cent. The tests also allowed of a selection of drivers who proved to be far superior to those drivers who had not undergone the tests or who had failed to pass them.

Mr. E. J. WILLIAMS: In the percentage of wastage to which the hon. Member has referred, was the effect of overtime taken into consideration?

Sir E. GRAHAM-LITTLE: I do not think it appeared, hut obviously it is one of the things which must be considered. What I want to do is to persuade the Minister really to look into this question for himself, to compare the data which. are now forthcoming from all parts of the world and not regard this as a mere highbrow ideal quite impossible of achievement.

6.39 p.m.

Mr. BENJAMIN SMITH: No one will deny that the Minister of Transport has not made experiments in regard to the traffic conditions of this country, and the advice he has received to-day ought to keep him well occupied for the next few years in developing the theories which have been put forward. We have travelled all over the world in order to find a factor of safety. While we agree with the intention of the Motion, the simple thing is to try to get uniformity of conditions throughout Great Britain. To start with lighting. Is there any length of road upon which there is say for a distance of 10 miles uniformity of lighting? From Gallows Corner coming from Brentwood you pick up one system of electric lighting after another, and before you arrive in the City of London you have 30 different types of lighting; and on a wet night this is one of the most dangerous factors en the road. A committee was set up, by the right hon. Gentleman in 1935, but it did not specialise any particular type of lighting. I presume its object was to avoid giving a monopoly to any particular company


but it has now come down on the proposal that we should aim at a uniform system of lighting. No one who has been on the roads for many years will deny that this factor is one of the most important which the Minister can consider. Every local authority has its own system; it is permitted to do almost what it likes with regard to lighting. We have in Wandsworth a competition of gas versus electric lamps, because of the contracts held by the gas company. If we are to tackle the problem of safety on the roads, we have to get a uniform shadowless lighting which will give a factor of safety, especially to older people.
Then with regard to road surfacing. Why cannot we get a uniform system of road surfacing We have been told of various systems during the Debate, and of one particular stretch of road where you dare not go at 20 miles an hour; if you did you were facing the other way in a very short time. Why cannot we get a uniform system of road surfacing and a uniform system of road construction? I believe it was the engineer for Oxford who issued a report two years ago in which every fatal accident that had occurred in his district was dealt with, noted, and the road was then dealt with in such a way as to meet any possible contingency in the future; and in no case has the accident been repeated. He dealt with banking and with the elimination of blind corners, and the Minister has permissive power under at least one Act of Parliament to take in hand the elimination of blind corners. While major road signs may be uniform in character, they are certainly not universal, and if the major road signs "Slow" or "Stop" are the right things to have before the entrance to a major road, then they ought to be placed in every road that enters a major road.
The Minister will, of course, think that I am speaking with some prejudice when refer to the beacons, which have already been mentioned. My view is that they perform an absolutely useless function, although I believe that if they were lighted at night they would perform a useful one. The constituency which I represent has never adopted the system of beacons, nor has it adopted traffic lights. If hon. Members will look at the returns for London, they will see that my constituency, which is a heavily con-

gested district, comes third in the list of 28 boroughs so far as both fatal and nonfatal accidents are concerned. One of the claims that I submit for uniformity is the factor of cost. Bermondsey is a very poor borough and the erection of traffic signals and beacons—although I know the Minister was willing to pay up to a certain point—would mean a serious increase in the rates of the Bermondsey Borough Council. The Council as such is not against traffic signals at crossings, but it does feel that the cost of the signals should be borne by the Road Fund and should not go on the rates. A suggestion has been made, and I would commend it to the Minister, that crossings should be introduced gradually. I am sure the Minister will forgive me if I remind him that, against the advice of his own Committee, he introduced something like 10,000 crossings in the Metropolitan area, whereas the Committee had suggested that the 200 crossings which had been put in experimentally should be allowed to develop slowly. One hon. Member has said that as these crossings were introduced, as it were, overnight, nobody respected them, and I think that is a very sound argument.
Another matter to which I would like to refer is the Council which was set up under the Road Traffic Act, 1933. A Transport Advisory Council was established and it set up various sub-committees on publicity, education, and so on, all of which reported to the main committee in the hope that something would be done. One committee, on which I had the honour to sit, advocated the development of films at a cost of several thousands of pounds, but the Minister gave no financial support to that work. Had he done so, I believe we should have been able to do a lot more through the cinemas and schools to eliminate road accidents. I was also a member of the committee which dealt with the road code, which has been accepted by the Minister; but as a practical motorist, who has driven for many years and who, thank God, is still driving, I submit that everybody knows that those rules are much more honoured in the breach than in the observance. The reason is that there is no statutory backing behind the rules. If they are good rules, they ought to have statutory backing, and the Minister ought to obtain legislative sanction to enforce them on the motoring public.
But I would deprecate it if this Debate turned on motorists alone. The hon. Member for West Bermondsey (Dr. Salter) has spoken of the serious effects of alcohol upon drivers. If that be true, it applies equally to the pedestrian who takes alcoholic drinks, and he is as liable as the motorist to be the cause of an accident through drinking. Therefore, the hon. Member's argument must mean in the final analysis that drink should be abolished altogether. Another matter to which I would call the Minister's attention is the elimination of trade signs which clash with the present signals system. Often when driving along a road one sees a red sign which takes no form in the distance, and is only clear when one gets almost up to it, and that in my opinion contributes to the danger on the roads.
In 1933 the House of Commons passed the Road Traffic Act, in which the hours of lorry drivers were definitely fixed at 11 per day. Powers were taken under that Act to appoint examiners who would look into the working of the Act. I think the Minister will agree with me when I say that, in fact, no lorry driver is ever challenged as to his hours on the road, and that it is only when an accident arises and the man in sheer self-defence says: "This is what comes of working too long hours," that he, and never his employer, is hauled before the courts. I would ask the Minister seriously to consider placing enough people on the road to enforce the hours laid down under the Statute on the employers, and, if necessary, on the employés.
The hon. Member for Barnstaple (Mr. Acland) suggested, among other things, the provision of playing streets. These may be a very good thing here and there, but my experience is of one that was tried in London. It was in a slum area, and all the inhabitants of the street had to put up with the antics of every child from the immediate vicinity. I have never heard it suggested that Belgrave Square should be a playing street, but if a playing street is a good thing in Paddington, it would be equally good to try it out in Belgrave Square and St. George's Square. So far as the children are concerned, playing streets are no solution of the problem. It might be possible to solve the problem if the local authorities kept their school playgrounds

open after school hours and allowed the children to go off the roads into the playgrounds, but there again the question of cost arises.
One of the most surprising things is that 90 per cent. of the accidents that are tabulated are attributed to human error, but in the case of lorry drivers, or, to put it broadly, those who earn their living from motoring, it will be found that they have the smallest number of accidents. The Minister might very well consider whether the tests are being applied properly and whether, where offences have taken place, the licence should not only be withdrawn but, if eventually the person wants to drive again, he should not; be submitted to another test as to his efficiency. That would be something that would hang over the head of a person who wilfully disregarded the rules of the road.
Before concluding, I would like to point out that I have seen a system of lighting, outside Liverpool, which takes the form of a small glass disc which is placed on the kerb immediately off the road at bends, and a headlight lights up that glass disc even on foggy nights. The Minister might consider whether such a system should not be generally adopted in any future road construction. In this Debate the Minister has received a great deal of advice, but I want to suggest that he should first aim at having some national board which would have as its object the establishment of uniform systems throughout the whole country. If he failed to get such a board, there are already in existence voluntary associations, such as the National Safety First Council, which he could use if he would make a grant out of the Road Fund. The Minister and his Department have used the National Safety First Council in the past, and I remember that about two years ago the council carried out a six months' experiment on a system of tabulating and reference which the Minister ultimately adopted in its present form. Why could not the National Safety First Council, which is admirably fitted for purposes of propaganda, be given some grant in order that it might assist the Minister in giving the necessary advice to the community as a whole? If the Minister made such a grant I believe that he could under the present Statutes do all that we are asking him to,


do in the way of effectively reducing accidents. We on this side of the House support the Motion.

6.58 p.m.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: We are indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. C. S. Taylor) for choosing this human subject from among so many others, and for constructively and earnestly introducing it. He was followed along the same lines by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Sandys), whose courtliness I would acknowledge. -Indeed, no one standing at this Box could complain of the spirit of this Debate. It is remarkable, considering what we are discussing and the atmosphere which used to surround it, how harmoniously the Debate has proceeded. If there have been one or two exceptions, excuses may readily be found. I understand that the enthusiasm of the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bermondsey (Dr. Salter) sometimes carries him away when he is in the vicinity of alcohol, but his remarks do not in the least disturb my muscular-neurological processes—to use a phrase which he employed. I understand that behind his charge against me that I am an accessory to murder, there really is the most friendly and cordial feeling, and that he keenly desires my success in an object which both he and I have at heart. We may exonerate also my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wallasey (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon), who comes here suffering under an indignation with which we can readily sympathise at finding his splendid Hupmobile car overtaken by a Baby Austin. He has tried to make me pay the penalty of this humiliation. I can understand also the hon. Gentleman who spoke last. There have been differences between Bermondsey and my Ministry for a long time past and no effort of mine will suffice to reconcile them. I shall, however, refer to what he said in the proper place, and, as he reminded me, I shall have some difficulty in doing justice both to him and to all my other hon. Friends, for it was pointed out that I should be here not half an hour but 12 months if I endeavoured to examine all the advice which has been bestowed upon me. Any omissions therefore in my speech will be pardoned, and I can assure my hon. Friends that every proposal made to me will receive the closest and most sympa-

thetic scrutiny. The kindly references which have been made to the administration over which it is my duty to preside are much appreciated, and I take them as a recognition of the really hard work that has been done by an exiguous but extremely competent staff.
The problem of road safety is a modern problem. In the year 1910, in which His late Majesty came to the Throne, there were 30,000 fatal and non-fatal accidents. The annual total ascended almost without a pause until in 1934 it reached over 200,000. During the reign of 25 years the casualties were considerably in excess of 2,500,000—a figure, I would observe, comparable with the aggregate of all the killed and wounded in the forces of the United Kingdom in the Great War. The period coincides with the accelerating output of mechanically-propelled vehicles. The number of these on the roads in 1935 increased progressively at an average rate of about 450 a day, and the addition still continues. Just as the Industrial Revolution made Britain in the nineteenth century the most densely populated country, so it has happened that in the twentieth century it has become the most densely vehicled country in the world. The number of motor vehicles registered per square mile in Great Britain is 23. In the United States it is seven.
So quickly has this development occurred—it covers but the space of a generation—that the engineers and surveyors have not yet been able to evolve, as in the case of the railways, the means of assuring the free flow of traffic in conditions of method and safety. That is still our task, and I will give the House some narrative of how we are proceeding with it. I do so under the headings mentioned in the Motion, and I respond particularly to the question addressed to me by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wallasey. For construction, adequate finance has been made available. There is a five-year instead of a one-year programme. While in practice, as is always the case, both the works projected and the estimates of their cost are subject to revision and adjustment, schemes submitted under the five-year programme are now of a gross value of £130,000,000. About 70 per cent. of the actual expenditure on approved schemes will fall on the Road Fund, which will continue to meet its normal liabilities for maintenance, block grant, and miscellaneous ser-


vices, amounting to about £17,000,000 a year. The programme is by far the largest and most comprehensive effort made by any Government to secure a steady and progressive development of our highway system.
Its first instalment—works approved for commencement during the current financial year—is estimated to cost £22,500,000 — 3½ times the figure at the corresponding period last year. In order that modern requirements may be fulfilled, higher grants have been offered for work on trunk roads and for the novel features of dual carriageways and cycle tracks. What is the principle on which the Government intend construction to proceed? That is the second question asked by the hon. and gallant Member for Wallasey. As I tell the House, it will form a conception of the highway system of the future. It was last year that powers of far-reaching importance were conferred by legislation to fix in advance the standard or ideal widths to which the roads in any particular class should be eventually enlarged. In order to minimise for the future those impediments which occur from variations in the dimensions of the same carriageway as it passes through different areas, the Minister of Transport was made the ultimate authority for the fixing of these widths.
With a view to obtaining the most up-to-date information and ideas on the proper lay-out within the standard widths, representative engineers and surveyors were called into consultation with officers of my Department. From their recommendations we have extracted for the guidance of all concerned the formulas to be followed in the carrying out of the five-year programme. We take as our unit of width for each lane of traffic a minimum of 10 feet. The number of traffic lanes required will be determined by the flow of traffic, and where this amounts to 400 vehicles at the peak hour —an average of six or seven a minute—more than two traffic lanes will be required, and dual carriageways should be provided. From this basis we proceed to build up according to requirements a road containing in addition to the feature I have just described and the indispensable footpaths, separate accommodation for cyclists and horse riders, with space for margins with trees and shrubs

and communicating with service roads outside the standard widths. It will be recalled, as a further assurance of the security and usefulness of the roads, that it is now not possible to make new means of access wherever standard widths have been adopted. This is a picture of what the Government intend that our highway communications should become.

Mr. BENJAMIN SMITH: Will any arrangements be provided to enable heavy traffic to draw in off the road?

Mr. HORE - BELISHA: That is visualised. The development of roads, like the growth of forests, is a long process, but progress is being made with perceptible rapidity, and as some indication of it I would mention that proposals have been made by highway authorities under the five-year programme for 230 miles of cycle tracks and 750 miles of dual carriage-ways. My hon. Friend who moved this Motion may therefore be satisfied that a uniform policy of construction is being pursued. With regard to the other items referred to specifically in his Motion, I will make reference to them seriatim. It will, I hope, be generally admitted that our roads are maintained in a high degree of efficiency. The qualities of the surfacing are another matter. Here it would be undesirable to insist on uniformity until the right prescription has been found. The officers of my Department work in the closest conjunction with the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research on which expenditure out of the Road Fund of the order of £50,000 is annually incurred. Just as the nuisance of dust has been universally abated, so have investigations been directed to the avoidance of skidding. Recently a new type of thin carpet which seems to meet the case and which, it is contemplated, will last for several years without further treatment, has been introduced. My engineers are hopeful that it may be the means of reducing accidents primarily due to this cause. It may be convenient if I continue this catalogue by dealing with some of the other subjects which were mentioned.
As regards trams. my hon. Friend referred to them as "travelling menaces." I can inform him that in the last five years the route mileage of tramways has been reduced by 700 which is 30 per cent. of the total mileage of tramways in this


country so that the mileage of tramways to-day is one-third less than it was five years ago. On the proposal for a braking test, I would say that the phrase is easy to employ but the formula is difficult to discover. The Transport Advisory Council is engaged, on my behalf, in trying to devise such a formula. As to rear lights on bicycles, I have, of course, no legislative power to compel bicyclists to use rear lamps, but my hon. Friend will be interested to read the report of the Committee on Road Safety among School Children which is now in print and which makes very emphatic references to this subject.
As for subject of play streets there are in the North of England, in Salford and Manchester and certain other places, many play streets and I was glad to hear the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Barnstaple (Mr. Acland) which was one of the most thoughtful speeches on that subject to which I have listened. I believe there are about 200 of these streets in Manchester and Salford and I was anxious to introduce them in London —not because I like them for I have never considered the play street a substitute for the play ground and I consider that play grounds ought to be provided—but because as a realist I had to recognise the fact that there were no play grounds and that, meantime, children were being killed. I therefore gave my approval to a proposal for certain play streets in London, but the local authorities, as the hon. Member who spoke last knows, took the same view as that which he has laid before the House this afternoon and, thus, our good intentions led nowhere.
I now come to the subject of drink. This is rather an inconsequent catalogue of subjects, but in the circumstances that is unavoidable. The hon. Member for Bermondsey West (Dr. Salter) spoke rather intemperately on drink. In the course of his divagations he was repeatedly asked what he suggested I should do in the matter. It turns out that all he requires me to do is to make public reference to the subject. I did not suppress the report of the committee to which he referred. I went out of my way to ask the British Medical Association to investigate the subject in order to see whether any useful suggestions would emerge. They published a report which was sold at 6d. per copy. The hon. Member wanted me to publish it at the

Government's expense, hut, the doctors having undertaken this work, I do not see why the medical profession should not get what advantage it can from the sale of the report. They were selling their own pamphlet. It was published by them and it would not have been right for me to use the Government service to do what they themselves desired to do and what in fact they did.
There has been, however, no suppression and anybody who desires may read the committee's report and may learn that there is no proposal emerging from that report which I could put into operation. I do, however, make this claim, that I mentioned the subject for the first time in the Highway Code—not that that has elicited any gratitude from the hon. Member for Bermondsey because according to him apparently alcohol is not to be coupled with fatigue. But there is this paragraph in the Highway Code:
Before using the load be sure that your alertness or sense of caution is not affected by alcohol or fatigue.
Never before was there a reference to the subject in the Highway Code. I inserted it and I would point out that this is a document which has been circulated to every householder in the country and which is presented to everybody applying for a licence. Therefore, I hope that the fury of the hon. Member will abate.

Sir FRANCIS FREMANTLE: Does the Minister recognise that what he has just said does not in the least enforce the particular point of the medical inquiry, which is to bring it home to people that the least little quantity of alcohol before driving a car involves danger?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I agree with my hon. Friend that the British Medical Association laid it down that alcohol even in small doses was liable to have a bad effect on the driving of a car, but it does not fall to me to operate their recommendation. I cannot prevent people from driving cars who have taken some alcohol, I can only call attention in general terms to the subject. I have indicated in the Highway Code that it is undesirable that motorists should drink when they are going to drive their cars and I do not think I can do more than that.
As regards traffic signs, the law does not permit any diversity in the pattern of traffic signs. Lighting, on which we


have had an extremely well-informed speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Yardley, is not directly within my province. County councils in 1934 were empowered to take over the lighting of roads in their areas from smaller authorities. A departmental committee of the Ministry of Transport has laid down as the standard to be provided one capable of giving full visibility to a motorist travelling 30 miles an hour without headlights. I am in communication with the county councils on the matter and I need hardly say that I accept the views expressed about the advisability of adopting such a standard. My hon. Friend the Mover of the Motion is of opinion that even greater uniformity could be achieved in all the directions that have been discussed, by transferring control from the numerous highway authorities to some single absolute body. There are important considerations to be borne in mind, one being that our present system is rooted in historic traditions and any endeavour to supplant it wuold meet with great resistance. Further, the financial readjustments both of rates and taxes would present problems of maze-like complexity. Nor would it be proposed, I imagine, that highway authorities should be entirely relieved of their responsibility for the roads, forming the overwhelmingly greater proportion of mileage in the country, which have a predominantly local use. However, it is not necessary on this occasion, in the absence of definite proposals, to discuss that issue further or to prognosticate what its future determination may be.
Just as the elaborate traffic census taken last summer indicated the places where improvements should be made and their extent, so must other measures to promote safety proceed from an accurate knowledge of the causes of accidents and the conditions in which they tend to occur. It is proposed, in co-operation with my right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland to make an analysis this year as from the beginning of April not only of fatal accidents, but of all accidents involving death or injury. This will be the most exhaustive analysis ever made in this country. It may involve the study of about 200,000 separate occurrences and I am encouraged to believe that chief

constables will find the labour worth while, particularly in view of the results which followed upon a more limited study of certain "black spots" in London. As a result of the improvements made in those "black spots" the number of accidents on the four thoroughfares in question was reduced by 14.8 per cent.; the fatalities having fallen by 53.5 per cent. serious injuries by 32.4 per cent. and slight injuries by 10.6 per cent. All this has been in comparative periods of six months on four roads to which special attention was given. Here is impressive evidence of the value of taking action based on careful recording and observation.
It is also by statistical evidence that we must judge the efficacy of the measures already taken. Comparing the year 1933, in which there were no pedestrian crossings in London, with the year 1935 in which they had been laid down, we find that there was a reduction in pedestrian fatalities of 24 per cent. and in pedestrian injuries of 12 per cent. What then becomes of the criticism made by the hon. Gentleman who preceded me in this Debate, and who dismissed crossings, as indeed, he also dismissed traffic lights? The facts clearly show that the results have been worth while. Already in the eight weeks of this year as compared with the corresponding period of last year—I am speaking of the country as a whole where pedestrian crossings have now been extended—there has been a reduction of 24½ per cent. in pedestrian fatalities and of 16 per cent. in pedestrian injuries. The speed limit has also had a great effect. It is remarkable that the rate of fall in accidents is snore than twice as great in the city and town police areas where the speed limit usually applies, as in the county areas where it does not generally apply. If there are any particular grievances about any particular roads, I shall be glad to have them, when they mature, and the Parliamentary Secretary will deal with them.
The House is aware that 1935 is the first year since the War to show a reduction in the aggregate of killed and injured on the roads. Eight hundred lives were saved, a reduction of nearly 11 per cent. as compared with the previous year and there were 12,000 fewer injured—a reduction of 5½ per cent. In 1936 the tendency so far continues—though I do not wish to be too optimistic


—and the reduction up to 22nd February this year is 19 per cent. in the killed and 8 per cent. in the injured. I hope that the extension of guard rails, the publication of the report of the Committee on Safety for School Children, the proposed anti-dazzle regulations and other measures, some of which have been referred to, will make for a further reduction in casualties. I may be permitted to say that the measures taken and the regulations made depend for their success upon their enforcement by the police and magistrates. I have not time to deal with the suggestions which have been made under the heading of police. The success of these measures and regulations, however, also depends on the co-operation of the public. It is with that knowledge that I have addressed myself confidently to all agencies which can affect for good public opinion. They can see that the assistance which they have already given has been pre-eminently worth while. This Debate to-day and the speeches which we have heard will, I feel sure, continue the tendency which we have so happily been able to report.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House, while welcoming the substantial reduction in road accidents which has resulted from recent action, urges upon His Majesty's Government the importance of pressing forward all possible measures to achieve a still further reduction, and asks that a uniform policy of constructing, surfacing, maintaining, signalling, and lighting the principal roads should be progressively pursued.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

PERTH CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL (Lords) [By Order].

Order for Consideration read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now considered."

7.31 p.m.

Mr. G. HARDIE: I want to ask whether any change has been made in a Clause in the Order which restricts the freedom of a certain section of the community. It relates to the right of any individual to use the pavement in order to advertise a meeting. While I in no way desire to support anything that would mean disfiguring streets or buildings, I want to maintain a right to cer-

tain things for that class of people who cannot afford to put up electric signs or to publish announcements in the ordinary way open to people with money, and who are restricted to the only method that is left to them of chalking advertisements of meetings on the pavement. There is no doubt that if this Clause is instituted, it will become a general restriction. If the corporation had been anxious to meet the citizens within its borders, it could have satisfied what was to be permitted, but if this Clause is passed it will not be laid down definitely in the Bill but will be left to the chance opinion of whatever may be the appropriate committee at the time. The question of whether the right should remain will be left to the opinion of the committee, whereas it should rest with the community. Arguments have been advanced that the chalking of announcements on pavements and roads might frighten horses. To-day, however, we have a worse thing than a chalk line; we have metal reflecting blocks which are put down to show a certain line of demarcation, and they throw up a greater glint than chalk because chalk absorbs light. The whole argument shows that the corporation want to obtain loose powers which will be used against the right that individuals should have in the city of Perth.

7.35 p.m.

The LORD ADVOCATE: (Mr. T. M. Cooper): This is not a Government Measure, nor is it even an opposed Provisional Order. Under the procedure prescribed by the Private Legislation Act, 1899, if an Order of this kind is not opposed by petition in the usual way, it falls to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to make the Order and then to submit it for confirmation by Parliament. When it comes before Parliament for confirmation, the decision rests with the House. Accordingly, while my hon. Friend the Member for Springburn (Mr. G. Hardie) addressed me as the Minister in charge of the Bill, I should like to make it clear that I rise for the limited purpose of answering the question he has put and giving the House such explanation as I think necessary for the consideration of the question, and, at the same time, since the Order was made by my right hon. Friend, expressing the views on the merits of the Bill which he


and I hold. When I say the merits of the Bill, I mean the merits of the isolated topic to which the hon. Member has referred. The House will, of course, appreciate that the Bill deals with a large variety of topics unconnected with the special question to which the hon. Member has referred. In Clause 84, to which objection is taken, the Corporation of Perth asks power to make by-laws
for regulating or controlling the marking of carriageways and footpath, by writing, painting or chalking thereon or fixing or exhibiting any placard or notice thereon.
The hon. Member for Springburn stressed what he called the right of the individual subject, by which I understood him to assert a claim on the part of the individual citizen to utilise the public streets or pavements of a Scottish burgh for the purpose of disseminating information—and I care not what the information is. The position is rather the opposite of what the hon. Member indicated, because the principle is well established and of great. antiquity that the public streets of a Scottish burgh—I do not know what the position is in England, and for this purpose it does not matter—are held in trust for the community for the purposes of passage, and any use to which any person may attempt to put the public streets which encroaches or threatens to encroach in any way upon that paramount purpose of passage, is an infringement of the public right of the community.
It follows that the magistrates—the Town Council of Perth in this case—are trustees of this public right and have a duty, independently altogether of statutory regulations, at common law to vindicate the right of the public in the public streets for this paramount purpose of passage. Any person who asserts a right to utilise the public streets for any purpose which might infringe or encroach upon the paramount right of passage is under—to put it no higher—a very heavy onus to show why the assertion of that right should not be subjected to regulation and control. The angle of approach to this question is in principle rather opposite to that which the hon. Member suggested. The position is that the paramount right of public passage must take precedence over all other rights in so far as the other uses of the streets are consistent with and do not interfere with the paramount right of passage.

Mr. HARDIE: Is a chalk mark on the pavement an obstruction?

The LORD ADVOCATE: It may be so, for this reason. A chalk mark on the pavement may create obstruction by attracting persons and children on to the carriageways to the interference of the traffic and the injury of the children. Considerations of that kind obviously suggest the necessity for control and regulation of this interference or threatened interference with the paramount interests of the community. In principle, the community in a Scottish burgh, acting through the town council and the magistrates, is entitled to exercise this control by the method of bylaw and penalty, which is the modern counterpart of many old remedies which are no longer in use or suitable, and the right claimed by the Corporation of Perth is entirely in line with and in harmony with the principles of Scots law upon which this whole question hangs.
Independently of that, I should also stress the consideration that powers either identical with or not materially distinguishable from those which the Corporation of Perth are claiming have already been confided to a number of Scottish burghs and a number of English cities and Metropolitan boroughs. For example, the city of Edinburgh has enjoyed similar powers since 1879, and during the last 20 years, until August of last year, some six other Scottish burghs have been given the power to control by regulation an operation of this kind. In August of last year this question arose in connection with an inquiry before a Parliamentary Commission under the Act of 1899 in relation to orders promoted by the burghs of Ayr, Troon and Kilmarnock. The commission was presided over by my hon. Friend the Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean). It is, I think, material for the House to know that a Committee of this House, acting after inquiry and investigation, examined this matter in relation to these burghs less than nine months ago, and that the three confirming Bills with the orders dependent passed into law with provisions substantially, although not exactly, identical with those which are now questioned. I should also add that, passing from Scotland to England, the model by-laws issued by the Home Office for the guidance of English local authorities desirous of enacting


Bills under the English Local Government Act, include a by-law, again very similar, if not identical, to that for which power is being sought in this Bill.
One other point in reference to what the hon. Member for Springburn said. He rather indicated an apprehension that the method of operating this power would depend upon the chance opinion of a chance committee. All that is asked by this Clause is power to make by-laws subject to the conditions and provisions as to by-laws made by town councils under the Burgh Police (Scotland) Acts, 1892 to 1911. The effect of that reference is to incorporate various statutory provisions the short effect of which is that the by-law when made has, first, to run the gauntlet of the sheriff, before whom any interested party is entitled to appear and to be heard, and even if it surmounts that obstacle, it must further run the gauntlet of the Secretary of State for Scotland, to whom once again representations in the usual way can be made; so that I think my hon. Friend may accept my assurance that there is no risk of anything in the nature of arbitrary or capricious regulation or control involved.
In these circumstances the question raised by the hon. Member, as it seems to me, is this—and this, I know, is the way in which it was looked at when this Order was in the course of preparation—Are there any circumstances associated with the city of Perth which require that a measure of municipal regulation already in the hands of many other local authorities should not be extended to that burgh? So far as I am aware, there are no such circumstances. On the contrary, from all the information which we have been able to obtain, the situation in Perth rather reinforces the claim for this power. In that situation, while this is in no sense a Government Measure or one in which any sort or kind of pressure is sought to be exerted on Members, I would submit that considerations of principle and regard for Parliamentary precedent amply justify the inclusion in this Provisional Order of the Clause to which objection is taken, and I would advise hon. Members to support it.

7.48 p.m.

Mr. MAXTON: The learned Lord Advocate states the case very moderately on behalf of this Measure. It is the case that is invariably put forward when the average municipal council comes to this

House for extended authority. It amounts to this: The Town Council of Perth have asked for an extension of their powers to regulate the lives of their citizens, and therefore this House ought to grant it. There is a whole lot to be said for that principle, but I would remind the learned Lord Advocate that it is not so very many months ago that the great city of Glasgow came here asking for extended powers to regulate their public activities. That Bill had been carefully prepared by the City Council of Glasgow and their legal advisers. It contained a large number of provisions which the Glasgow Council, a properly and democratically elected council, deemed necessary for the good conduct of the affairs of their city. On that occasion there was no speech from the Government Front Bench nor from the Government side of the House enunciating the principles enunciated here to-night. What is the difference? The city of Glasgow is at the moment under the control of a political majority different from hon. and right hon. Members who sit on that side of the House, and these principles that are now to operate with reference to Perth were out of action on the occasion when the Labour Corporation of Glasgow wanted extended powers which they believed necessary for the good conduct of their city.
The opposition put up by responsible Members on that side of the House, including the Government, was 100 per cent. opposition. That Bill was rejected by the overwhelming vote of this House, not because there was anything in it that was wrong or that was in conflict with the general law of this land, but simply because it was presented by people with whose general political theories the majority of this House were out of sympathy. Therefore, I put the Lord Advocate's speech on one side, because that type of speech has no weight or influence whatever unless it is made on every occasion, whatever the composition of the council that asks for powers may be. If my hon. Friends and I were so chock full of political prejudice as hon. Members opposite, we would take a similar attitude to this Bill as the majority in this House took on the question of the Glasgow Bill, but we try to do our work here in the proper spirit of Parliament, and we are prepared to say that, so far as the great proportion of this Measure is concerned, the people of Perth are per-


fectly entitled to have the additional powers for which they ask.
We take exception to one thing only, and that is not a thing that is local to Perth, but is a matter of general national importance, or I will limit it to the point of saying that it is of general Scottish importance, but it is also of English importance, namely, the right of the citizens to congregate freely, to voice views which they desire to ventilate, and to do that without let or hindrance except in so far as there exists a great body of Statute law in this land which places very stringent limitations on what a speaker at a public meeting shall say. He is tied down by blasphemy laws, by sedition laws, by incitement to disaffection laws. At every turn he is "cabin'd, cribb'd, confined" by the existing law as to the limits of what he shall say. He is limited in the matter of what he can say about individuals by all the laws relating to libel, slander, and so on. Any number of limitations are on the right of public meeting and public speech, but in general the principle has been preserved in Scotland for long periods of historic time that anyone who desired to hold a meeting had the right to hold it in some convenient public place that did not cause obstruction to the general traffic of the city, and, secondly, he had the free right to summon that meeting by giving public intimation in the simplest way available to him, namely, by writing on the roadway or on the pavement.
This practice has been in operation in Scotland for hundreds of years. Meetings of Covenanters were called in this way; and now there is an attempt to make an inroad on this liberty. The learned Lord Advocate tells us of the number of places which have already got this power as an argument for extending it still further. I would very much like to know the genesis of this desire to suppress public meetings, because it is new, it is in recent times, in the last few years that public corporations in Scotland, wanting to promote private legislation for widely varying things, some to extend their boundaries,. some to do something to their local waterworks or gasworks—whatever the main purpose for promoting the Bill was, it seems suddenly to have dawned upon them in the last 10 years that this other thing must be slipped in, and nowadays

there is never a private Bill coming from any burgh in Scotland but they must shove in this thing limiting the right of free speech and public meeting, never dreamed of before. Just in these last few years the town councils of Scotland seem spontaneously to have come to this view, now, in the 20th century, after years of public education, with a more literate, a more intelligent, and a more enlightened population than ever existed in Scotland in any past time, just at this stage, when the general standard of public knowledge, education, and conduct is higher than ever it was before.
I know the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart), with his very great oratorical skill, will contend that this Bill does not prevent it at all. I know the Liberal way of looking at these things, and I know what he will say. He will explain to me, word by word, that this Clause does not prevent a public meeting, and I will agree with him at once that it does not prevent a public meeting if the Corporation of the City of Perth are graciously pleased to permit that public meeting to take place. I put it to the hon. Gentleman: Would he entrust a decision as to whether he was to have a public meeting, and advertise it, in the hands of my hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern)? Would he allow the hon. Member for Shettleston to decide whether he was to be allowed to speak in Shettleston? He has different ideas of liberty from those which I hold. I think it is entirely wrong to allow any body to lay down rules, regulations, and by-laws under which I am to deliver public speeches. That is what is being done here.
In Glasgow there has been for many years regulation, by by-law, of indoor meetings on Sundays. Before anybody hold a meeting inside a public can licensed hall on Sunday he must, days in advance, give the magistrates all details—who is to be the speaker, what the subject is to be. Imagine the hon. Member for East Fife giving his subject a fortnight in advance. Usually in this House he does not know what his subject is to be until he has started speaking. They are similar regulations which are wanted by the City of Perth, limiting, restricting and confining the possibilities of holding public meetings in Perth freely and openly and giving the citizens a full opportunity of being present. The Perth


people would admit at once that it is a limitation. The regulation would be no use to them if it were not a limitation. Why should this desire have grown up spontaneously among all the burghs in the last dozen years, when, through all the past, the general law of the land, combined with the general good sense of the citizens, was sufficient to deal with the matter? Perth cannot produce any evidence of abuses. Perth does not claim that unless the magistrates and the police have additional powers they will not be able to maintain the peace and good conduct of the city. Like the Lord Advocate, I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Govan (Mr. Neil Maclean) is not able to be present. The Lord Advocate suggested by his statement about the Committee which considered the Kilmarnock Bill that the hon. Member was an enthusiastic supporter of this Clause.

The LORD ADVOCATE: Oh, no, I merely said that I regretted the absence of the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. N. Maclean), who was Chairman of the Committee which investigated the matter so recently as last August, and whose investigations had issued in an Order which contained provisions practically identical with those in this Clause. I can only infer from that that such provisions had his approval.

Mr. J. J. DAVIDSON: Is it not a fact that when the hon. Member for Govan was on that Committee the choice before him was only the choice of regulation or of abolition?

The LORD ADVOCATE: I should have thought the Committee had the choice of rejecting the Clause altogether as well as varying its terms.

Mr. DAVIDSON: No.

Mr. MAXTON: Those proceedings are matters for the members who sat on the Select Committee, but I am strongly of the opinion that the hon. Member for Govan was in a minority on this issue on a Committee of which he happened to be Chairman, and the Lord Advocate knows that it is not regarded as proper for the Chairman of such a Committee to announce in public that he dissents from the decision of the Committee. I wish the hon. Member for Govan bad been here to-night. He might have felt free to express his own view. I am not try-

ing to make him carry my views on the subject, and the Lord Advocate is as little entitled to ask him to carry his views. A minority report does not come from a Select Committee. It may be that the hon. Member for Govan was prepared to consider some form of regulation. Even my own colleagues do not all take the extreme view on this matter that I take. My opposition is complete. Some of them take the view that some regulation is legitimate, provided that it appears in the body of the Bill, so that we may know in advance what it is. It is all very well for the Lord Advocate to say that any by-laws produced by the City of Perth will be the subject of public advertisement and open to local objection. I want to say this to those hon. Members who will speak for Perth. The Lord Advocate said that no opposition was put up to this Measure. Friends of mine in Perth put up opposition, and I was in communication with the Scottish Office on the way their representations had been treated.

The LORD ADVOCATE: I meant no opposition of the formal kind which converts an Order into an opposed Order.

Mr. MAXTON: My friends in Perth, working men and women, intended theirs to be a formal objection, but the Perth City Council took advantage of a loophole by saying their objection was not in the exact wording necessary, and presented the Bill as if it were an unopposed Measure. They knew perfectly well that there were interests in Perth in direct opposition to it, but they cut them out on a technicality. Now the Lord Advocate tells us the right of objecting to the by-laws will be open to them, that the by-laws will be reviewed by the sheriff and further reviewed by the Secretary of State. I see present my hon. Friend the Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher). I wonder how his friends in Perth, if any, will regard their chances of justice in the matter of free speech from the City Council of Perth, or from the sheriff, or from the Secretary of State.
I am asked, as a Member of this House, to let this Bill go through and farm out my responsibilities for the protection of the people of Scotland, to hand them over to the City Corporation of Perth, to the sheriff and the Secretary of State. I do not take that light view of my respon-


sibilities here. I have got power in this House of Commons. It may be one-man power, but it is power that I can use and will use. When the matter is in the hands of the Corporation of Perth, or the sheriff, or the Secretary of State, my power has ceased. They may function with perfect correctness and a perfect regard for freedom and justice towards the poorer sections of the citizens of Perth. They may; but it has not been characteristic of them in the past, and I have no right to believe that any great change of heart has taken place in those quarters since the Perth Provisional Order Bill was introduced. I was going to read one paragraph from the document which has been presented on behalf of the corporation to show what their attitude is. It states that petitions were lodged against the Order but that they were all arranged, so that the Order became unopposed. The hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Hunter) knows that the objection lodged by my friends in Perth was not withdrawn. It was not a formal objection, because the corporation got out of that on a technicality. Here is the Corporation of Perth telling me what my duties are as a Member of Parliament:
The promoters respectfully submit that in the circumstances, as the parties did not oppose the Order when they had the opportunity of doing so, it would he unfair to the promoters that they should be allowed to do so now when the promoters have no opportunity of leading evidence.
I wish the hon. Member for Perth would tell the right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) and other friends from the City of Glasgow about these ideas as to the duty of the House of Commons. Does the hon. Member mean to suggest that my right of opposing in the House of Commons should be taken away because someone in Perth did not oppose?

Mr. HUNTER: No, but I say they did not give us the opportunity of proving the necessity for the Clause.

Mr. MAXTON: The hon. Member is wrong. There is no "us" in this House. There is "him" and there is "me", and I have a right to make the case against the Order in this House. I am told that the hon. Member means by "us" the Perth Corporation.

Mr. HUNTER: I want the hon. Member to get a full opportunity to state the case, and I hope may be able to reply.

Mr. MAXTON: But you did not want to give me the full right to state the case. You have said in this document that we have no right to oppose this Order.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Bourne): I think the hon. Member had better address me. I made no comments.

Mr. MAXTON: I am sorry if I slipped into the wrong mode of address. Although I was looking at the hon. Member for Perth I was certainly addressing you, Sir.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I would remind the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) that the word "you" means the Chair.

Mr. MAXTON: I used "me" and "him"—perhaps not quite so grammatical, but more orderly. The hon. Members says that I have no right to speak here on this Measure, and I deny it absolutely. The Perth Corporation have no right to say that to me. This is my opportunity. I have had no previous opportunity, except the opportunity I have taken of objecting to this Measure at every stage. I hope the Perth Corporation, which shows such a tremendous regard, or promises to show such a tremendous regard, for free speech in Perth, will not try to extend their powers to denying it in the House of Commons. The promoters have the same right here as I have, if they have a friend in the House. They have the right of stating a case. This stage of a Measure is as important as stages that have gone before. The examination and leading of evidence by a Select Committee and by a local committee is the stage at which the details of the Bill are examined, and is an important stage for the local people. Now is the stage when the House of Commons decides whether the Measure, which the Perth municipality believe to be desirable from their point of view, is equally desirable having regard to the general interests of the country.
I say that it is undesirable, and an evil practice, that political majorities in con-


trol of cities or burghs in Scotland should endeavour to secure for themselves power to silence their political opponents and to silence voices which are uttering words which are objectionable to those who are in political control of a town at a given moment. Along that road you go direct to the complete denial of every freedom. To try to silence the voice of your political opponent is quite in keeping with the general political trend throughout the world to-day. Do it with a bludgeon in Germany, or with a by-law in Perth; the objective is the same. I suggest that the final results are also the same, and are a terrible deterioration in the public life of our nation. We never tire here of saying how much better off we are in this land than are the people in many other lands. We have liberty, but day after day we see liberty being filched away, and eaten into. It is very interesting to know that this particular by-law is developing in the burghs simultaneously with the development of Fascist suppressions on the Continent of Europe. It is exactly the same idea, that the mob cannot be trusted in their own streets, and that you are dealing with a body of inferior creatures who must be dragooned in every aspect of their lives because they cannot be trusted to live the life of intelligent citizens.
I do not know what view the majority of this House will take, but I am not prepared to give up one inch of the way from what remains of liberty of public meeting, or to concede one scrap as to the regulation of public meeting. Some time ago, the right hon. Gentleman who was then Secretary of State for Home Affairs made certain proposals, which he discussed tentatively with representatives of various parties, as to the regulation of public meeting arising out of the scenes that took place at Olympia. The scenes at Olympia and the methods of the people who organised that meeting were obnoxious and repulsive to me. The view that was promulgated by the Fascists at that meeting was absolutely in conflict with every idea and principle that I hold. The men and women who were battered at that Olympia meeting were my personal friends and associates, but when the then Home Secretary asked my views as to whether extended powers should be granted to the police to interfere with the right of public meeting, the point of view which I expressed was:

"No. One is aware of the temptation to limit the rights of political opponents, but it has been proved that the maximum of liberty for everybody is the best safeguard of public order in these matters." You cannot go very far in the attempt to put into the hands of the State the rights to direct the political activities of the citizens, without endangering the whole fabric of Democracy.
Perth may say what the stutterer said when the man asked him the road to London: "Why pick on me, when there are 8,000,000 others who could have answered very easily?" Perth may say: "Why pick on Perth to hammer on about questions of free speech in public meeting?" I pick on Perth because Perth is the one that happens to be on to-night. I pick on Perth because, after hundreds of years of local government power in that city, which, one is prepared to admit, has played a picturesque part in the history of Scotland in some of the stormiest times of Scottish history—Perth could go through all those times, hold up its head and survive as a city without placing restrictions of this description on the political rights of its citizens—in 1936, the city comes forward and says: "Perth has existed for—" how long?

Mr. BUCHANAN: What was the date of the Charter?

Mr. HUNTER: Its date is unknown.

Mr. MAXTON: Maybe about 1,900 years. It has existed all those years. It has been centuries with local government and a corporate life. Its affairs have been directed by all sorts of men in the past, who managed to keep Perth going and to preserve a reasonable amount of public order. Now they come and tell me, in the House of Commons in 1936, that the job is getting too big for them and that the citizens are out of hand, and that unless they get the right to prevent their citizens from chalking the pavement the civic life of Perth will come tumbling to the ground. As a Member of the British House of Commons with some slight knowledge of the history of Scotland and of the city of Perth, I do not believe that Perth, which has wauchled through—[Interruption.]

Mr. HENDERSON STEWART: What?

Mr. MAXTON: "Wauchlo" is the word I used. It is a Scottish word, not known in Fife. Perth has wauchled through the


past without this by-law, and can face the future with considerable confidence. I regret very much to be at cross purposes with the amiable gentleman who represents Perth, but if I have one person to support me I will go into the Lobby to vote against this Measure.

8.25 p.m.

Mr. HUNTER: I do not propose to follow the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) in his political address, because what he has said has nothing to do with the question before us. He seems to base his opposition to the proposals in the corporation's Bill on the ground of what happened in Glasgow. I am a native of Glasgow, greatly improved by residence in Perth, and I regret that the right hon. Member for Bridgeton is a native of a county which has deteriorated since he went to Glasgow. He has been like the man who set up a whole lot of skittles and then proceeded to amuse himself by knocking them down. It was not I who raised the skittles; it was he himself who raised the skittles, and he then proceded to bowl them over. He has told us a, great deal about freedom of speech, the proper spirit of the past, and so on, and he did Perth the justice of practically acknowledging, although he did not say so, that Perth is the ancient capital of Scotland.

Mr. HARDIE: Scone.

Mr. HUNTER: Scottish kings and queens were crowned in Scone, but they ruled in Perth. Perth was the centre of civilisation in Scotland—

Mr. HARDIE: When did it lose it?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order.

Mr. HUNTER: —before any place in the West of Scotland, and particularly Glasgow, was even known. After all, Glasgow is only a mushroom city; little more than 100 years ago it consisted merely of a few houses. But now we have those who represent Glasgow telling the corporation and the citizens of Perth, which has lived through centuries of history—

Mr. MAXTON: Without by-laws.

Mr. HUNTER: And with by-laws. To-day they have great traditions to maintain. Where were the battles for the freedom of Scotland most fought? Hon. Members opposite now find themselves

reduced to fighting in chalk. There is not the slightest grain of foundation for the statement that the Corporation of Perth propose to interfere with public meetings or with free speech. I challenge the right hon. Member to tell me of any other city in Scotland where the corporation is more willing and ready to give the people freedom of speech, and freedom to hold their meetings where they please, without interference from anyone. Mention has been made of politics. One of the things of which I have always been very proud, as an ex-Lord Provost of the City, is that politics are never allowed to interfere with local administration. There are no political parties in the Town Council of Perth, and no municipal election there has been fought on politics. We are all trying to do our very best, no matter what our political views are, to see that our city is maintained in the forefront of the world, with its great historic reputation, giving an example to other places, among them Glasgow. The right hon. Member for Bridgeton says that we are interfering with free speech. I believe he has arranged to come to Perth with his political party at some time in the summer, and I can tell him now, and can tell the House, that he will be allowed to say everything that he pleases; but I hope that, as a result of the passing of this Bill, he will not be allowed to write what he indicated to me privately he would like to write on the streets.

Mr. MAXTON: I do not think the hon. Member should make that reference without giving the quotation.

Mr. HUNTER: If I did, I might seriously offend the feelings of the House. This Order was promoted in accordance with the law of the land. It was advertised in every way; the citizens were invited to make representations as to improvements in the Bill, or to oppose it if they so desired. No opposition came from the party for whom the right hon. Gentleman has just spoken, either officially or, so far as I can recall, even unofficially—

Mr. DAVIDSON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Scottish Members of this House have received a, communication from the Labour group in the Perth Town Council protesting against this Clause?

Mr. GALLACHER: He says they have not a Labour group.

Mr. HUNTER: I agree with what the hon. Member for Maryhill (Mr. Davidson) says; it is correct; but it did not come until after the matter was closed and after we thought the Bill would be formally passed through Parliament. It did not come before the Corporation or within our knowledge until after the proceedings for the passing of the Bill were, so far as we knew, complete.
May I call the attention of the House to the Order itself it deals with various questions of importance to the public of Perth. For instance, it contains proposals for the extension and adjustment of the borough boundaries, and these have been carried through with the full approval of the county council. We are asking for power to issue corporation stock, and also to establish a burgh fund and other financial matters. Power is sought to make certain street improvements, which, when carried out, will promote employment within the city of Perth for many in the building trades. The Order asks for power to protect our water supply in service reservoirs, and also to make variations in the charges for water. It also provides that, if any casual vacancy should occur in the Town Council, that vacancy shall be filled by popular election rather than by co-option, as has been the case in the past. That is a provision which those whom the right hon. Member for Bridgeton represents very much desire.

Mr. MAXTON: Will the hon. Member allow me to intervene on a very minor point? He persists in calling me "right honourable," but His Majesty has not so far seen fit to confer upon me that distinction.

Mr. HUNTER: Perhaps I was speaking in advance of events. The Order also asks that we should have power to remove wrecks in the River Tay, and deals with various other minor questions. One Clause, to which some objection has been taken, is, as has already been pointed out, Clause 84, in which the Corporation ask for power to make by-laws
for regulating or controlling the marking of carriage-ways and foot-paths by writing, painting, or chalking thereon, or affixing or exhibiting any placard or notice thereon.

In this connection I would like to satisfy the hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie), who suggested that there was an attempt on the part of the Corporation to prohibit writings of all descriptions. I am authorised by the Corporation to say that that is not their intention, nor is it the effect of the Order. They have no objection to the streets being legitimately used for legitimate purposes—

Mr. HARDIE: We met privately and the matter was fully debated and it was understood, as the hon. Member says, that the corporation would give some guarantee. I want to see that guarantee embodied in the Order. I want to see the language. The town council changes from time to time, but we have a right to get language in the Order which no one can change.

Mr. HUNTER: I am advised that the proper place to put that is in the bylaws, so that those who are opposed to this suggestion can have an opportunity of having the by-law so framed as to satisfy them, if that is possible. [Interruption.] As the Lord Advocate has pointed out, the by-law cannot be passed without the opponents having a full opportunity of stating their case and, if they are dissatisfied, they have the right of representation to the Secretary of State for Scotland. The Scottish Office is very strict and careful as to the way in which by-laws and Orders are framed.
Perth is known far and wide throughout the world as "the Fair City." The corporation have always taken a pride in having well constructed and clean streets. That is often a matter of comment by visitors to the city. In their desire to make it worthy of its reputation the corporation have practically constructed all streets in asphalt. The hon. Member for Bridgeton said they did this hundreds of years ago. He knows that that is incorrect because not so many years ago, within his lifetime as well as my own, the streets were cobbled and there were no pavements as we know them to-day. [Interruption.] Hon. Members who live in Glasgow and have only a partial knowledge of Perth seem to know better than the corporation. [Interruption.] I should like not to be interrupted by experienced Parliamentarians. I ask for sympathy in my position as a new Member appearing before the House. Had the very small


minority of citizens who are opposing this always been content merely to use the streets for advertising meetings of their party, I doubt very much whether the corporation would have given any attention to the matter but, unless we get powers of control and regulation, the streets may be used by anyone for any purpose whatever and disgrace might be brought upon us in consequence. This has aroused very much public indignation. It is suggested that I, as an ex-Provost of the city, was responsible for this in some way. This had been before the corporation for many years before I ever hoped to be in the honourable position of Lord Provost of the city. I was continually approached and asked why I did not take steps to have this abuse stopped, but we had no power to regulate it or to do anything at all. On one occasion, in the presence of His Majesty's Inspector of Scottish Constabulary, the town clerk and several magistrates, a person began writing in front of us on the street, and we could take no exception because he was not causing obstruction although it was a main thoroughfare. It was writing which certainly offended those who represented the city at that time.
It is not the desire of the corporation to prohibit it. We fought for centuries for freedom, and. we still stand for freedom of speech and freedom of behaviour. I do not know a single case in which an application for a site on which to hold a meeting has been refused. But surely the corporation ought to be given the power to say what is the most convenient place at which a meeting should be held so that traffic shall not be interfered with. This writing takes place mostly in the principal thoroughfares, and it is not merely a question of offence to those who pass by but a source of great danger, because people stop on the street to see what is being written and crowds collect. With motor traffic of to-day, this puts people, especially children, in great danger of being bowled over by some advancing car. The council wish to be in a position to say to these people, "We do not object to you making an announcement of your meeting, the name of the party, the character, the date, the hour, or the subject of the meeting," and I am authorised to say that any by-law that is passed will give the citizens that power within the

authority of the town council to name the streets where it can be safely done. The minority that has taken objection to this is exceedingly small in number. I know two who have taken a prominent part in connection with this objection and they cannot by any means be taken to represent any large section of the community, because on several occasions and in several wards they have tried to get the confidence of the electorate and have regularly failed.

Mr. MAXTON: That is not against them. It is against Perth.

Mr. HUNTER: No, it is a recommendation of the common sense of the general body of citizens. It is realised that there are people who have not the funds with which to advertise through the usual channels or to get bills printed, and we do not want to handicap them, but we want their announcements to be made in such a way that there shall be no offence. We had a Royal visit last August and on the very morning of the visit we found the most offensive writings on the streets regarding the Royal Family. That gave very great offence to the vast majority of the people. No majority, far less a minority, should be allowed to give offence to anyone if it could be avoided. I hope that in anything I say, I am not giving offence to hon. Members opposite, because that is not my desire. I am pleading the case of the local authority, who are the appointed representatives of the people, who have a free vote, free speech and a right to meet where they like and to defend their principles, and that authority should say how the city is to be governed. If by any chance those representatives should govern the city wrongly, the people have the right to come forward and remove them. Therefore, instead of being opposed to what it was suggested the House did against Glasgow, I am speaking in support of the view that the local authority should be the voice of the people, whom they represent. I ask the House to approve of this Order because it is the wish of the popularly elected representatives of the people, who should have full control.
I do not ask the House to set up any precedent. We are asking for a much more moderate proposal than that which has already been passed by this House in the case of Aberdeen, where the corporation were granted power to prohibit any-


one writing or defacing the streets or footpaths in any way whatever. Dundee had that same power granted by this House in 1925, and it was affirmed in 1932. The Edinburgh Corporation were also granted this power as late as 1933 by this House, and only last year Ayr Burghs, Kilmarnock and Troon were granted the same provisions for which the Corporation of Perth are now asking. I do not think that any hon. Member can say that in any of these cities or burghs anything has been done by the public representatives to prevent the people from having that freedom of speech and liberty which should be enjoyed by every private individual. All we ask is that there should be a certain kind of control. If there is to be no control in local affairs, you might just as well say that there should be no control in national affairs. If there was no democratic authority in charge of our cities and burghs, and of the State, would not the country get into a sad state of chaos and ruin? The people are the sole judges of right or wrong. Since this Order was promoted, there has been a municipal election in Perth, when no attempt was made on the part of anybody, including the friends of hon. Members opposite, to raise this question at a single ward meeting, or to indicate to the Corporation of Perth that there was strong objection to it.

Mr. MAXTON: Is it not the case that friends of mine went on a deputation to the city council on this matter?

Mr. HUNTER: The hon. Member for Bridgeton is correct, but it was only three weeks ago that a request was made by those whom the hon. Member represents for an interview with the corporation. The corporation met them in a very sympathetic mood, and it was then that they said, "We will give you an assurance that nothing will be done to prevent your publicly intimating meetings of your party by writing on the streets." They said, "We demand the right to do and to write whatever we like on the streets," and with the result that the corporation representatives said that they could not entirely withdraw the Clause. They demanded the complete withdrawal of the Clause. Within three or four weeks at the outside they re-discussed the question, and by a majority of 23 to 3 reaffirmed their desire that they should have power to control and regulate the marking, chalking and

writing on the streets. The matter has been thorouhgly thrashed out among the citizens, and by the corporation, and not even the hon. Gentleman or anyone else in this House dare get up and say that he would prefer to over-rule the considered opinion and the desire of the corporation to preserve our city and all its pristine beauty. It is with the greatest confidence that I ask the House, if hon. Members are really democratic and against autocracy in any shape or form and against all forms of dictatorship, to stand by the elected representatives of the people and give the Corporation of Perth their Order.

8.52 p.m.

Mr. GALLACHER: I have listened to two speeches of the most astounding character, and 1 can scarcely think that one who has been a Lord Provost of the fair city of Perth could treat us in such an incredible manner. As for the Lord Advocate, I can hardly believe that anyone who claims to have a knowledge of legality could get up and speak in this way—not representing the Government but a clique if he had any character at all, which is more important than representing the Government, for they have none.

Mr. HUNTER: rose—

Mr. MAXTON: He is not referring to you.

Mr. HUNTER: I would like to correct the hon. Gentleman. I do not represent—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Unless the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) gives way, the hon. Member is not entitled to interrupt.

Mr. GALLACHER: I was referring to the Lord Advocate. The hon. Gentleman has told us that in the Perth Council they have no parties. They seem to be a very happy family.

Mr. HUNTER: We are.

Mr. GALLACHER: They are a very happy clique, and they are taking all these precautions to try to remain so. The other party is a small party and does not represent very much. Has there ever been heard in this House anything so menacing as when he said that on one occasion, in the presence of the inspector of constabulary and two or three


other important persons, a fellow started chalking, and he had no power to interfere. Oh! what he would have done to that fellow! Is it possible that the House of Commons will give power to people of this description to interfere with such a legitimate art as that because on the morning of the visit of some Royal personages there was chalking on the street.

Mr. HUNTER: It was offensive chalking.

Mr. GALLACHER: But let us not give offence. It is so nice.

Mr. HUNTER: For you.

Mr. GALLACHER: No, for you. When you have extreme wealth and extreme poverty, is there no offence in flouting that extreme wealth in face of extreme poverty? No greater offence can be committed. You go around with your pomp and display, and waste and extra, vagance, while women and children are starving, but there is to be no offence. If the women and children want to express their feelings let them go into a back street and do it. Do not let them do it before the nice people who are visiting the fair city of Perth. Is it not clear that it is an attempt to prevent natural expression? The Lord Advocate, being a legal man, feels that he is a bit out of his depth and he has to try and bring in some arguments in order to strengthen his case. Therefore, he says that if you have chalking in the streets there is a possibility of people gathering. The hon. Member for Perth quoted the Lord Advocate. Are there no such things as moving lights and changing lights in Perth, and people gathering? Why are the lights there? To make people gather. That is the object of the moving lights and the changing lights. Are there not shop windows in Perth lit up at night in the most brilliant manner? What is the object of that? To attract people and to cause them to gather. All the direction of advertisement on the part of shopkeepers and on the part of those who have money and those who are running meetings for the big crowds, not for the small crowds, is to spend money in order to gather crowds. They have money to spend but the other poor fellow has not.
Now I come to the ancient Scottish law or an understanding of the ancient Scottish responsibility. What is it? The right of passage. I am not a barrister but I have been in court very often, and I have had to argue time and again on this very question. The Lord Advocate may remember that I had to argue on this particular question not many months ago in a court in Edinburgh. The magistrate on the bench had to hold over his decision in order to get legal advice on the question. I want to put it to you, my Lord Advocate—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member must address the Chair.

Mr. GALLACHER: I want to put it to the Lord Advocate, through you, Sir, that the responsibility of the Perth Council is to guarantee the right of passage through the streets and all that is involved in the right of passage. I have as much legal right to interfere with the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) chalking on the streets of Perth as the Perth Council have. It is entirely illegal to give the Perth Council an Order of this character. This question has been fought out over and over again. The Lord Advocate may remember the McAra case. It was laid down that the magistrates of the City of Edinburgh were acting with the utmost presumption in seeking to exercise powers to which neither magistrates nor local authorities have any right. Local authorities, so far as the streets are concerned, are governed—this has been discussed in the courts time and time again—by the right of passage. I do not know what applies in England and Wales, but I know that that applies in Scotland. Anyone obstructing the course of passage by any means can be dealt with by the laws that exist to guarantee the right of passage.
I challenge the Lord Advocate on this question. He is proposing to give to the Perth City Council, and it has been given to other city councils, powers which they have no right to have, and there must be a definite protest made against it. It is an attempt on the part of those who have to safeguard themselves, no matter how much they infringe upon the liberties of the poorest of the poor. I say to the Perth Council: "Please do not do it." Do not interfere with those who have no other means, of advertising but


chalking, and no means of expressing themselves through a newspaper. They cannot start a newspaper in the fair City of Perth, because many of them are living in the most extreme poverty, and say things about the unemployed. In the local newspapers some of your nice people make insulting remarks about the unemployed, but, if the unemployed go out and chalk in the streets they are to be dealt with. I say to those who have any regard for democracy, the protection of minorities and the protection of the weak, do not give any support to this Order, but reject it.

9.4 p.m.

Mr. J. J. DAVIDSON: I want to suggest that this question should be seriously considered not from the point of view of he minority of people in Perth but the. minority of the Labour movement in this country. The. hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Hunter) made many references in regard to his Glaswegian origin and his transference to Perth. He stated that he had improved since he had gone to Perth, but I suggest that the improvement has been in stature or inches but in no other way. He referred to the party to which the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) belongs as being reduced to working with chalk. I sincerely hope that he is not suggesting that the hon. Member for Bridgeton or his colleagues have now allied themselves with the Milk Board. We have had no guidance from the Perth Council with regard to this matter. I attended a meeting to hear the case from the representatives of the Perth Council, and I want to deal with one or two points in the speech of the hon. Member for Perth which were in direct contradiction to the statements by the Perth representatives. He stated that chalking of the description to which he referred was a danger to traffic. I asked the Lord Provost of Perth a direct question—whether he or any of his colleagues could give one specific instance of any mishap or accident, or gathering of traffic, caused by chalking in the streets, and he replied that they had no instance of any such occurrence.
We do not object to a majority council party being allowed to make regulations for its own local people, but we object to a Clause which gives them authority to use the power of regulation and control in any way they desire. If the coun-

cil desire to make any promises or pledges with regard to this Clause they should have submitted them to the House from whom they are asking this concession. The hon. Member for Perth described it as a beautiful city. I would suggest that if he came to Glasgow during a local or General Election and saw the excellent style and types of chalking indulged in by Glasgow working-class men and women he would agree that such a style and type would enhance the beauty of Perth, not take away from it. He said that the Perth Council would in no way interfere with the legitimate use of chalk advertisements, but he added that in the two principal streets of Perth chalking was not desirable. I suggest that in these two principal streets no chalking would be permissible and that if advertisements in the two principal streets in Perth are not permissible you might just as well not allow advertisements in any part of the city at all. Those who desire to use this form of advertisement will have to go into the backways of Perth, and the hon. Member will agree with me that practically the entire population of Perth, on their regular walks, only use the two main streets to which he has referred.
While this subject may not seem very important to some hon. Members it is very important to a big section of the community. The two Labour Councillors on the Perth Council definitely object to this Clause and the railwaymen and other sections of the community representing a minority point of view, but a strong minority, have asked Members of this House not to agree to something which will create hardship for their movement. Reference has been made to the danger so far as traffic is concerned. The hon. Member for Perth did not refer to the posters which were placed in conspicuous parts of the city with a very lifelike picture of the Prime Minister. Surely if chalking in the streets can be construed as a menace to traffic, how much more can a picture of the Prime Minister be construed as a very definite menace to horse traffic and to other forms of traffic. The hon. Member for Perth referred to the history of the fair city. I appreciate very much the earnest way in which he put his case for the city to which he has been transferred, but we are asking that the Perth Council shall not have the right to say to the organised sections of the


community that they shall only be allowed to state their views in certain areas of the city, thereby giving the council the power to take away all advertising power of these working-class organisations. Hon. Members opposite have the great mass of newspapers in this country on their side, and for every single car of a Labour Councillor or Parliamentary representative they can obtain 50. The minority case is never submitted to the public by newspapers and by posters because of the poverty of the working-class movement.
This Clause, perhaps not intentionally on the part of the Perth Council, is something which can be used still further to take away from working-class organisations the only methods they have of stating their policy and views. It will be agreed that scurrilous comments chalked in the streets are to be deprecated. We agree that these things should not take place, but they can be dealt with already by the local council. If the hon. Member and the City Council of Perth are not satisfied, then they should take the necessary action to gee-up the authorities without trying to victimise working-class organisations. The hon. Member stated that Glasgow is a mushroom city. I very much regret that he should refer to the industrial capital of Scotland in this way. But I agree. In my Army days we had a term for prison; we called prison the "mush" and, therefore, on the Army interpretation Glasgow can be termed a prison room for many of the working classes. I accept the definition, but, nevertheless, in Glasgow there have been no complaints and no objections to chalking on the streets because our opponents generally recognised that they had the best of the bargain by their wealth and their power in the Press.
As a new Member of the House, I do not agree that it is necessary for any council, which has perhaps received objections with regard to certain statements in the street, to come to the House of Commons in order to have the matter remedied by a Clause of this character. During my lifetime in the Socialist movement I have always recognised, as I do to-day, and as I have seen since I came into the House, that it is the purpose of hon. Members opposite to retain all the privileges which they have, and they have constantly brought forward legislation aimed at retaining those

privileges. I look upon this Clause, despite the assurances of the hon. Member for Perth, as an attempt by the representatives of hon. Members opposite in the Perth Council, to retain the privileges which they have always had in the past.
The hon. Member for Perth referred to the question of Perth ruling for the majority of the people within its boundaries. But does the House not agree that, so far as this particular question is concerned, people of the working class who have no other means of stating their opinions ought at least to be allowed to retain this privilege which they have? I describe this Clause as an attempt to take away from them a privilege which they have used fairly and decently throughout the years which they have had it. There is no Member of the House who can describe the usage of this particular method of advertising by the working class as having been abused or misused in the past, generally speaking. There may have been exceptions, but there have also been exceptions where hon. Members not of the working class have used their power in pamphlets and in newspaper articles in much the same way.
I appeal—but I will not appeal, for I have recognised that on very many questions there is no sense and no use in appealing to hon. Members opposite—I ask every Member of the House who has retained a sense of fair play and who believes that the poorest section of the community should at least have an opportunity of expressing its point of view, to support us in objecting to this Clause which, in my opinion, is contemptible because it is being inserted by people who are not so much concerned with the morals of Perth as with the growing working-class vote in that city.

9.18 p.m.

Mr. WESTWOOD: I am in agreement with at least one of the statements made by the hon. Member for Maryhill (Mr. Davidson). I agree that this is a, most vital question, for it concerns the rights of local government as against the attempt on the part of this House to prohibit the local authorities from doing their own work within their own boundaries. I think I can claim to know at least something about local government in Scotland, and I am at, the


moment associated with most of the local administrative bodies. I find that there is nothing which is creating greater fear and real misgivings in the minds of local administrators in Scotland at the present time than the repeated attempts on the part of this House to limit the powers of local government authorities and to take away from them their rights to deal with administrative problems within their own areas. One protest after another was lodged in this House in 1929, and protests have repeatedly been lodged since, because of the curtailment of the powers of many of our local administrative authorities in Scotland. It is for those reasons that I agree that this is a most vital question.
If I thought for a single moment that the proposal of the Perth Corporation infringed the sacred rights of democracy I would oppose it, and no one would do so more bitterly than I; but it is because I believe the proposal is democracy that I support it. I believe that the people of Perth, through their elected representatives, have the right to apply by-laws, and if those by-laws are wrong, it is up to the people of Perth to get rid of those who have applied them and to put into power representatives who will apply the right ones. I have always preached that it is better to have even a bad law that can be changed than to take unconstitutional measures to get the right law.

Mr. MAXTON: You have always insisted that there should be an opportunity for working-class agitation.

Mr. WESTWOOD: And no freer opportunity was given to me to express views in that agitation than in the city of Perth. There was a time when the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) and I were chased from pillar to post, and while I was prohibited even to speak at meetings in the constituency which I now represent, I could always express my views in the city of Perth.

Mr. DAVIDSON: But you will not be able to do so if this Clause is passed.

Mr. WESTWOOD: After all, it is a matter of opinion, and I did not interrupt the hon. Member for Maryhill. I always had the opportunity of freely expressing my opinion in the City of Perth, and if I thought this Clause would stop that, I would oppose it. The original proposal

did represent a prohibition. I happened to be a member of the Convention of Royal Burghs, on which the City of Perth used to have two representatives, and I was in the position to discuss that proposal. I pointed out that the party to which I belong, a party which is poor in wealth but rich in intellect, would oppose that prohibition with all the powers at its disposal. The result was that there came into being the Clause which is now before the House. I understand that there is no objection to any other part of the Bill. If I thought this Clause represented a prohibition, I would oppose it. The town, on the Council of which I happen to sit at the present time, will in the near future bring forward a similar proposal, and I could not logically oppose the present proposal when I shall be supporting one of a similar character when it comes before the House.
Let us examine exactly what this Clause is. Let us get rid of rhetoric and get down to hard facts. Already local authorities have power to apply by-laws within their area, but before a single by-law can operate in Scotland it must receive the approval of the sheriff of the county. Also objections can be made to the proposals. There is nothing new here in that the House has given far greater powers at other times. I think that the City of Dundee got powers for a complete prohibition. In the case of Ayr, Kilmarnock and Troon the very power contained in this Clause was granted. Therefore it is nothing new that is being asked for to-night. The Clause says:
for regulating or controlling the marking of carriageways or footpaths by writing, painting or chalking.
Why should the citizens of any town in Scotland be inflicted with some of the paintings that I have seen on our streets? I am not arguing the merits of the advertisements but I think that it is wrong that our streets should be used for painting on. I have seen letters 18 inches to 2½ feet in length painted on our streets. That is not right. No one can justify that and I am not going to justify it. I have seen the most offensive statements.

Mr. MAXTON: Do you mean pavement artists' work?

Mr. WESTWOOD: I do not mind an artist, but I think that even the imaginative genius of the hon. Member for


Bridgeton would not charge anyone who has done some of the paintings which I have seen with being an artist. I want the House to understand that it has responsibilities in connection with local administration. We are entitled to see that our streets are not used for the purpose to which I have referred. Again, they have been used for the most vile attacks on individuals. There are individuals who know what it is to be most vilely attacked by persons who have not used liberty but licence. I want to defend liberty from attack and to attack licence from wherever it comes. I submit that we are entitled in local administration to have the power to control, not the power to prohibit. No by-law under this Clause could possibly be approved by the sheriff which sought to prohibit the use of the streets. It is right that certain streets should not be used for the advertising of any meeting which I may be going to address in Perth or elsewhere. That is the responsibility of the local authority. I believe in local government, in trusting the people of Perth to deal with any of those who would seek to take an undue advantage of this particular Clause. We have the assurance of the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Hunter) and I can give an assurance on behalf of the Lord Provost of Perth and the town clerk that there will be no unfair use of this power. They are willing to give that pledge in writing. They have already given it to me—that there is no intention to prohibit or even regulate unfairly legitimate advertising of public meetings whether they are held by the Labour party, the Communist party or any other party.

Mr. DAVIDSON: Is it not a fact that at a meeting of the Perth Council representatives they retained the right to decide where chalking should be allowed?

Mr. WESTWOOD: That is exactly what I stated just now, and they have the right to do it. Coming from Kirkcaldy I have not the right to tell the Perth people what they are to do. It will be in the hands of the Perth people. Because I believe in democracy, because I believe in local government, because I do not want this House to impinge still further on the rights of local government I for one am going to support this Bill.

9.31 p.m.

Mr. STEPHEN: I must say that I agree with the voice of the Back Bench

of the Labour party rather than with the voice of the Front Bench, and I would like to point this out at the outset. While there has been all this eloquence from the Front Bench as to the rights of local government and the rights of democracy in connection with local government, that is only if it is a case of making regulations, not in the case of prohibition. The hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk (Mr. Westwood) said that if the council, this elected council, this democratic body, were going to take power to prohibit then he would oppose it. He from Kirkcaldy would say to the people in Perth that he would oppose them, but when it comes about that Perth is asking only for power to make regulations then, lo and behold, according to the wisdom of the hon. Member, it is the voice of democracy. That is simply to play with the whole question, and is to show a complete disregard of one of the methods by which hon. Members are sitting on that bench to-night. I am just wondering about some of these pavement artists who so offended the aesthetic feelings of the hon. Member. I have chalked myself and I know that it is not a very easy job to do, and possibly those Members of the Labour party who have chalked the hon. Member here are now sorry that they helped so much to put him here. Maybe, however, he will try to atone by getting a special course of instruction from the Minister of Labour to train these poor despised artists of the Labour party who have chalked so badly in his interest.
Everyone who knows anything about the growth of the Labour movement knows how important a part the chalking of roads has played in the development of that movement and the growth of the Labour party. Not only Members on this side, but Members on the other side must realise from experience in their own constituencies how large a part this method of advertising and of conveying agitational points has had in the development of the working class movement. They will also be able to realise that some of us on this side feel great bitterness when we hear a member of the Labour party talking as the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk has talked to-night.
The arguments of the Lord Advocate seemed to me, in the main, to be correct. He said that there was already power to


deal with anything which impeded free passage through the streets. He said he could conceive of an advertisement or chalking on the pavement causing obstruction, but, he said, the law was already there to deal with it. Then, having made the case that the law is already sufficient, he went on for some strange reason to express the hope that the House would give the Perth Town Council this additional power. Why should they want such an additional power if power is already there? Why is there this disposition for one burgh after another to come to this House asking for these powers, if power is there already in the hands of the authorities to deal with any grievance. What is the necessity for new regulations and what are those new regulations going to do?
The hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Hunter) seeking to defend the town council referred to the fact that somebody had chalked the streets on one occasion in the presence of himself and a high officer of the constabulary and on another occasion when a royal personage was visiting the city. When the royal personage visited the city, I have no doubt that there was bunting in the streets and much to attract crowds and that those crowds created obstruction and prevented free passage through the streets. There is nothing in the Bill to deal with obstruction of that kind. Today we often see aeroplanes advertising various articles in the sky. A wreath of smoke from the aeroplane forms certain words and crowds frequently gather to watch with the result that motorists and pedestrians find it difficult to get through the streets. If Perth is such an advanced city, as well as being the ancient capital of Scotland, there may have been displays of this kind in the sky over the fair city. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent that kind of obstruction.
I have not the slightest doubt that the whole force of this new power is to be applied in order to crib and cabin the work of those who are on the left wing in the political struggle in this country. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] The hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir S. Chapman) seems to think that that is not the reason for this proposal. Then what reason is there? So far, in the Debate, no real reason has been given. Remembering the premise of the Lord Advocate's speech, that power is already

there to deal with any difficulty of the kind sugested, why should there be this tremendous urge for new powers? With regard to the particular circumstances of this Bill I would remind hon. Members that it came before the House shortly after the new Parliament assembled. Objection was taken to it and before the New Year the hon. Member for Perth came to some of us who objected to it and was told that the Bill could have free passage if this Clause was omitted. He told us that he could not do anything in that respect. The Bill has been on the Paper ever since and it has been objected to ever since. The representatives of Perth never thought it worth while to send anybody here with authority to put proper safeguards into the Bill to secure full liberty in this respect to members of the working class, though they tell us that they are prepared to give that liberty. About a fortnight ago representatives of the Perth Corporation were here. They knew of the opposition to the Bill but they did not think it worth while to consult the opponents of the Measure. It is true that when they came here this week, when the Bill was down for discussion to-night an indication was given that they would be graciously pleased at the last minute to confer with us.
I suggest that if this liberty is to be given it ought to be given statutorily. There is no real safeguard in being told that the by-law will be framed in a suitable way. An attempt was made previously to deal with this matter in a bylaw and similar assurances were given in the case of one of the Lanarkshire towns. The town council in that case promised to be fair and reasonable just as the town council of Perth is promising in this case, but their regulations were such that the sheriff turned them down when they came before him. I may be told that the regulations made by the town council of the Fair City will go to the sheriff and that the sheriff can be trusted to see that they are reasonable. There are sheriffs and sheriffs, and they very often give conflicting decisions. In a matter of such vital importance to the growth of the working-class movement as the expression of opinion, it should be laid down by Statute as a right enjoyed by the people. I would remind the House of a great pamphlet that was written by one of the great masters of prose and


poetry of this country, John Milton. I believe that it is one of the favourite pamphlets of the Prime Minister. I refer to Milton's "Aeropagitica." The Prime Minister once quoted a passage from it about God's Englishman and the great place that he was destined to have in the working of the world, but I would venture to remind the House that everything that has been said by the representative of Perth and everything that was said by the hon. Member on the Front Bench on this side was said also as a reason why there should not be liberty of printing. That voice for liberty, Milton, asked as the basis of liberty, "Give me the right to say and to utter." We are asking for that tonight. If it is to be done by regulations, a right will be impaired. Liberty is not something on which you can put shackles and still call it liberty. It is not something upon which you can put strings, even silken strings, and still call it liberty. I know that a distinction may be made between liberty and licence—

Mr. EDE: Milton made it.

Mr. STEPHEN: The distinction was made in that pamphlet, and it is clear that the practice enjoyed at the present time comes fully within Milton's definition. There is nothing of what Milton called licence in the present practice which gives liberty to people to advertise and express their opinions on the streets. Anyone who makes the distinction between liberty and licence has to show that there has been licence in this matter. There seems to be a feeling that there has been an abuse of liberty, but the only evidence we have are the two incidents referred to by the hon. Member for Perth. If there had been any real abuse of liberty transforming it into licence, there would have been the necessity for national legislation by the Government.
I would ask the House to insist that this Clause should be taken out of the Bill, or, if it is to remain, to insist that before the Order is finally operated there should be a proviso that there should be the liberty without regulation to intimate, at least, the time and place of a meeting and the name and subject of the speaker. There can be nothing of licence about that. It is an ordinary liberty that everyone ought to enjoy. I

agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) that the Clause would be better out altogether, but if the promoters insist that they must have some machinery of this kind to prevent what they consider to be the possibility of licence, let them meet the representatives of the people in the House of Commons, who have a right to protect the liberties of the people in order to see that the general liberty enjoyed under the common law is not interfered with. I hope that before the Division takes place the promoters will give some indication that they will take a more reasonable attitude than they have done, or on the other hand, that by a majority the House will refuse to consent to this Order until the promoters are prepared to give liberty to their fellow-citizens.

9.52 p.m.

Mr. D. GRAHAM: I understand that it is the usual custom on a Bill of this sort to leave the question to the free vote of the House. I would not have joined in the discussion but for the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Falkirk (Mr. Westwood), who looks on this matter rather from the point of view of a town councillor than from that of a representative for a Parliamentary division. I cannot agree with the line that he has taken because he argued that the town council should have powers superior to those of Parliament. We have always held the right in this House to override any proposal from a local authority which we believed to be contrary to the common law or to be infringing the rights of the individual. As I understand the promoters of the Bill, their intention is to give considerable liberty to the holding of meetings. They seem to think that one or two particular parts of Perth should be excluded from the area that might be used for chalking announcements and holding meetings. I have a high opinion of the city of Perth from the point of view of its beauty, but I cannot say I have a high opinion of its representatives in the town council. People in Perth do not seem to be as democratic as some Members in the House try to make us believe they are. If they were, there would be more than two Labour representatives in the council.
As I understand -lie statement that has already been made, the Labour representatives on t1- e Town Council of


Perth are against this Clause. To a very large extent I agree with the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Maryhill (Mr. Davidson), who quite clearly and fairly put it that there was some justification for the claim that freedom to advertise meetings in the streets on the part of the ordinary working class was something that might well be given by this House because of the general knowledge which we all have of the poverty of certain of the organisations connected with the Labour movement. If we take away the little power which they have to make known to the general public that they exist and that they have a point of view to put, we are destroying liberty and real democracy. There is a minority as well as a majority among the democracy of this country, and the only means they have, largely owing to their poverty, is to advertise their meetings on the public streets or side streets. I agree that there is a distinction to be drawn between liberty and licence, and I have no hesitation whatever in expressing my view that the town council and every local authority should have some control in these matters. I would be prepared to meet them if it were only a question of granting control, but they should not have the right, without consultation with the local people affected, to say that in any particular parts of the town council area this kind of advertising of meetings should be debarred.
I am not prepared to cast a silent vote. There are lots of things that I do not agree with so far as the chalking of streets is concerned, and there are many things that have been done that are not very pleasant to read, but I do not think that the actions of a comparatively small number of thoughtless people should be taken as an excuse for depriving the general body of people in a locality such as the City of Perth of the right which at present they enjoy in this connection. No statement has been made by the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Hunter), who has been Lord Provost of that city, that there have been any complaints or any police cases or accidents in consequence of any of these meetings being held, and in those circumstances I would ask the Members of this House, who have the right to consult their own opinions on this matter, not to make this a purely

party question. If he had looked at it from a purely party point of view, my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Falkirk (Mr. Westwood) would not have expressed himself as he did. He expressed himself as he did because he believes that this is a matter on which each individual should cast his vote in the way that he thinks fit.
I want to cast my vote against this Clause. I would be willing, if possible, to give as much power as could reasonably be expected to the local authority to have some sort of control that would not debar the organisations affected from seeing that their meetings are fairly advertised, by chalking the streets or otherwise. I think the Town Council of Hamilton would have as much of this kind of thing as anywhere in the West of Scotland, and I do not know of a single case of complaint being brought before the police there with regard to impeding the traffic or doing any damage. I hope hon. Members will exercise their right to express a purely individual opinion when the vote is taken, and that the majority of them will be against the passing of this Bill until the Perth Corporation are prepared to make perfectly plain the promise that has been made and to put it into the Bill. I do not believe in mere promises being given from either the front Bench or the back benches. I think we ought to have it in writing, and if they would put it in writing that they are prepared to give facilities and full opportunities for meetings to be organised, I think I would be prepared to give them the other powers for which they are asking.

Mr. HUNTER: The hon. Member asks that the promise might be given in writing. I will give him the assurance that it will be given in writing.

Mr. GRAHAM: But the hon. Member can only give the assurance on his own part, and even the council could give such an assurance, but I think the corporation should withdraw the Bill now and give an assurance that this promise that facilities will be provided will be put into the Bill itself.

10.2 p.m.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Captain Bourne): I intervene, not to deal with the merits of this question, on which it is not for me to


express an opinion, but to put before the House the position as it stands in regard to procedure. The Motion before the House is, "That this Bill be now considered." It is a Motion that is only applicable to private business, and the effect of its being defeated would be, I understand, that the consideration could come forward another day. If that Motion is carried and the Bill is now considered, it will not prevent the right of any hon. Member to move any Amendment which, under the rules of this House, he would be entitled to move in the case of a public Bill. I have listened to much of this discussion, and I am putting the position forward in order that hon. Members may be quite certain how the procedure stands.

Mr. GARRO-JONES: Many of us are rather anxious about this Clause and do not like it. We think it is a mean Clause, and we want to get a further explanation about it before we allow the Bill to pass. Could there be a manuscript Amendment which could be accepted immediately?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS: It would be open to any hon. Member to move that the Clause should be deleted.

10.4 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I would not have intervened had I not felt that this was not a Perth matter that we are discussing. If the matter had been confined to Perth or to Kirkcaldy, I would not have intervened very much, because I am not very much concerned with either of those two places, but this is neither a Kirkcaldy matter nor a Perth matter that we are discussing. It is a matter that affects the whole of Scotland. The argument to-night has been that this power has been given to five towns, and therefore we must give it to every other town. If this were to apply to no other town than Perth, we here might let it go, but tonight the House is discussing a matter which to-morrow may affect every town in Scotland. I happen to have been in this pavement-chalking business, on the Parliamentary side, for a good number of years, and I would recall, in fairness to the late Willie Adamson, that he refused a similar Clause to at least two towns, within my knowledge. He took the view that if such a Clause were to be intro-

duced it ought to come as an alteration of the whole law of Scotland, and not be applied in piecemeal fashion. Greenock asked for the same powers as are asked in this case. An inquiry was held. The local people who opposed it found they could not brief counsel and the matter went by default, but Willie Adamson, by virtue of his power as Secretary of State for Scotland, decided not to give cognisance to the Clause, and it had to be dropped from the Greenock Bill. The same thing happened in another town. The present Secretary of State was the Member for Greenock then as he is now, and lie agreed with the dropping of the Clause from the Greenock Bill.
I would remind hon. Members of the facts in connection with this "chalking of meetings." In almost every town, even those of medium size like Kirkcaldy and Falkirk, there used to be the old hoardings on which bills could be displayed. Those hoardings have now almost disappeared, because on every side the town is gradually being built up and the sites of those old hoardings are now occupied by houses or garages or other buildings. I live in the Govan Hill part of Glasgow, where there used to be a whole host of open spaces, but to-day they are occupied either by mission halls, churches, garages or houses, and there is practically not a hoarding in the whole area. There is no method of advertising anything except through the Press. I would remind hon. Members that in Glasgow the Press is barred to trade unionists, with one exception. So there is no means of advertising our meetings unless we chalk the pavements. Poor religious bodies resort to the same practice. Even the Salvation Army, who are not, in my view, a mercenary people, and who have done good work at great self-sacrifice, "chalk" their meetings and their band performances. They do it in a, city far worse than Perth, in the Gorbals district. The Gorbals has less than a third of the acreage of Perth but a population far greater, and if chalking were dangerous where could it be more dangerous than in a place like that? Yet every public meeting we have has got to be "chalked."
Elections will in the future be fought more and more by people with little or no money. I think the day of big organisations and wealthy candidates is going. How can half of us on this side fight an


election unless it be by the cheap and easy method of "chalking the meetings"? It is in the interests of hon. Members to make elections as cheap as they can, and if they interfere with the right of chalking they take away the cheapest and readiest means of advertising their meetings. It is said that somebody has written something offensive. The same argument might be applied to a good many things. When I take up the "Daily Herald" I see offensive things. How often must the hon. Member for Coatbridge (Mr. Barr) when he reads the "Daily Herald," read terribly offensive things, such as Templegate's tips, which would be an offence to him with his views, far more offensive to him than many things chalked on the pavement. A deeply religious person must often have to read things which will offend him excessively, but nobody says that is a reason why we should stop newspapers, or why a local authority should get a power of veto over newspapers or printing works.
Another argument which was used by the Lord Advocate was that Kilmarnock, Dundee and other towns have got this power. There is always something in a local Order of which it can be said that it is an experiment which is being tried out. Dundee, which has this power, is not incomparable with Perth, though it is bigger town. In Dundee prosecutions have taken place for merely "chalking a meeting." In Dundee the powers have been used in the most cruel fashion, and it is because of my experience in Dundee that I say that these powers are unwarranted and are not asked for. The hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Hunter) said there was no opposition forthcoming from Perth, but it has been proved that there is opposition, and it is not sufficient to say that they are only a small group. Small groups are not necessarily wrong, and the smaller the group the more necessary it is to see that its rights are preserved. If small groups be his argument, it defends, for instance, everything that Herr Hitler has done in Germany. The Jews are a minority, small and insignificant; why not crush them? His argument is that they are small, but why refuse the right to them? The smaller they are the more valuable it is that Parliament should safeguard their rights in this Clause.
I represent a division in which I have fought a Communist and every other sec-

tion of this House, and chalking has been written about me. I am not in the least annoyed about the things which I have seen chalked about me on the streets. As a matter of fact, when I see them chalked I am as pleased that they are chalked as not. Everybody who knows elections understands that it is not the mere chalking which matters but the offensive tittle-tattle which you cannot challenge. You cannot stop people from saying or writing offensive things by preventing them from chalking. Most cities have a by-law against fly-bill posting, which is putting bills up on properties. What has happened? The Lord Advocate knows that although fly-bill posting is illegal, the fly-bill poster goes on, and in every street and every town you can see either the fly-bill poster at work or the evidences of his work.
What will happen under this Clause? Men will still chalk their meetings. Whatever you may say against the Labour party, against us or against the Communists, we three have it in common—it may be the only thing that we have in common—that our rank-and-file devote their time to the work without any sign of fear or sense of wrong-doing. These men will not be stopped by the Perth Town Council if they think that chalking is right. What the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk (Mr. Westwood) will do is to turn decent men into criminals, because out to chalk they will go, with their mission. Do you think you will keep them back Do you think it will stop their Socialist evidence of their love for the cause to say that they must not chalk their meetings? You could not do it with the old people who printed in defiance of you, and you cannot stop chalking with the by-law to-night. These men will go on, in defiance of the provost and the police. They will go out upon their mission and nothing will stop them because their belief in the cause is deep and sincere. It is their religious faith.
To-night we are dealing with a Clause which would turn men into criminals. The police could be more usefully employed in looking after the real criminals than in prosecuting people for trivial offences. One of the things that anger me in reading a newspaper is to see that people are being prosecuted for stealing a bit of coal from a bing while, in the same paper, the police seem to be impotent in the face of severe crime. They should leave


these men to go on chalking their views. Nothing you can do will stop them. You will only turn decent men of strong views, that they hold religiously and deeply, into a criminal population, and that would not be to the credit of Scotland or anyone else.

10.19 p.m.

The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Sir Dennis Herbert): Following upon what the Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means said just now, may I make a suggestion which possibly may be for the convenience of Members who are interested in this matter? So far as I understand, the whole point turns upon one Clause. As the Deputy-Chairman said just now, there would be no particular point or use in defeating the Motion, "That the Bill be now considered." If that Motion were carried, it would, I understand, within your discretion, Mr. Speaker, be in order for hon. Members to move to leave out from line 1 to line 16 in page 38. That is the Clause which deals with this particular matter. Hon. Members would then bring the issue which interests them directly before the House and get a decision upon it. I make that suggestion only because it seems to me that we are, at the present moment, engaged in what, to a listener, is a very interesting Debate, but which does not seem calculated to lead to any definite conclusion.

Mr. HENDERSON STEWART: On a point of Order. Is the suggestion of the Chairman of Ways and Means that the question, "That the Bill be now considered" should be voted upon now, and that, if it be agreed to, an Amendment should be discussed?

The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS: As I understand the matter, if the Motion "That the Bill be now considered" be carried, then, on the consideration, the Amendment could be moved. I do not know whether I am right in that.

Mr. SPEAKER: The Motion before the House is "That the Bill be now considered." If we get that out of the way, we can consider the Bill, and then Amendments can be moved. In other words, we can do what we do on the Report stage of an ordinary Bill. If we go on discussing the Motion which is now

before the House, we shall get no further forward.

Mr. HENDERSON STEWART: rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.

Mr. MAXTON: It is not necessary to move the Closure.

10.21 p.m.

Mr. GARRO-JONES: I am sure the House appreciates very much the guidance given by the Chairman of Ways and Means, but I think it was well understood by every Member who participated in the objection to this Clause that he would have later opportunities, the present purpose being to induce the promoters, by showing them that there was a strong body of opposition to the Clause, to undertake to hand in or support an Amendment to it, before we allow the Bill to proceed any further. The promoters and everyone supporting the Bill have been tumbling over themselves to assure the House that this Clause is not as bad as it looks, that it does not mean everything that it says, that it will be administered with certain reservations more favourable to those who object to it. What are those assurances worth? If that be the permanent and irrevocable intention of the Council, the Lord Provost, the Town Clerk, and everyone else, I feel sure they will have no objection to placing in the hands of the promoters an Amendment to give statutory effect to their assurances. I am in no way entitled to speak for other Members who have opposed the Bill, but I have hurriedly drafted a limited Amendment. I should not, of course, be entitled to move it, but it would give considerable guidance to the House if we could know that it would be accepted.
I object to the Bill because of the provisions of this Clause only, because it picks out this form of advertising—one of the only forms left to those who have no money to spend on other forms. In the newspapers in these towns, one has to pay as much as 12s. a single column-inch to get an advertisement of a public meeting at all, and I know of cases where the advertising rate for some political parties is considerably less than that for other political parties. Why pick on pavements? On all the hoardings advertise-


ments of every kind, including the most offensive kinds, are rammed down one's throat whether one wants it or not. What is the objection to a chalk mark on a pavement? I believe there are only two members of the Perth Corporation who object to this Clause, but it may be that their views are well worth protecting.
I have just been reading the penalty which the Clause seeks to impose. It is a penalty, as I understand it, of £5. I think that that penalty is out of all proportion to the offence. The kind of people who are going to be convicted of this offence have not £5 in the world, and, if the penalty is attempted to be enforced, it will never be collected. If it were a penalty of 5s. it would be far more reasonable and fair in proportion to the offence and to the means of the people who are liable to be convicted of it.
I am going to read what I propose that the promoters should agree to. I will facilitate the passage of the Bill if it is accepted and may prevent its passage if it is not. I would propose at the end of line 10 to insert:
Provided that nothing in this Section shall give power to the Corporation to regulate control or restrict chalking or other marking on carriageways or footpaths, stating only the time and place of a public meeting and the auspices under which it will be held.
That leaves the promoters power to regulate and restrict every other form of advertisement of an offensive kind. I am not sure whether that will be accepted by everyone else who is objecting to the Bill but, if it were accepted, I should not continue to oppose the Clause. I shall be very pleased to give way to the hon. Member if he is in a position to say anything about it.

Mr. HUNTER: rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member can only speak by leave of the House.

HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

Mr. HUNTER: The hon. Member has made a practical proposal. Of course, as he will understand, I myself cannot give a definite assurance but, if the other parts of the Bill are agreeable to the House—and I think they are—I will undertake to place the proposed Amendment before the corporation.

Mr. GARRO-JONES: Surely there is someone in the House who is entitled to speak for the promoters? Does the hon. Member wish to make reference to those who are authorised to speak for them? If so, we shall be very glad to have their views. I have observed in recent years a tendency to make these Bills brought forward by public corporations of an omnibus kind. The promoters pass them into the bands of Parliamentary counsel and others and give them instructions to draw the most all-embracing provisions that they can. They remind me of a company's memorandum and articles of association in small print on the back of a prospectus. The company is formed for some particular object, and by the time you have finished reading the memorandum and articles of association there is no form of activity under the sun which they have not taken power to carry out. Clause 88 is of this type. It would be a very salutary step if we could secure some amendment to the Bill, and in particular to this Clause. I shall be very glad if the hon. Member has been able to get us the assurance that we want, or has he gone to the promoters and found that their assurances are worth nothing?
The Amendment that I propose gives us the very least. We were assured that we should help them if we allowed the Bill to pass. How did it come about that we have not been able to get this restriction, if the hon. Member has referred to the promoters? Were their assures sincere? If so, what is the objection to giving us this restriction? I can see no objection to it whatever. In fact, I consider the Clause as it stands to be a very unreasonable one, and as far as I am concerned, in the interval which will pass between the passing of the Motion that this Bill should now be considered and the time that Amendments come forward, I shall do all I can, and I believe that other hon. Members will do the same, to prevent the Bill being passed. It is certainly a very strange state of affairs. Here we have been told on behalf of the Lord Provost, the Town Clerk and the promoters, the hon. Member for Perth and one hon. Member after another have told us that if this was our only object it could be met. We draft a reasoned Amendment which makes claim to very little. The hon. Member for Perth says that he is


prepared to accept it. He confers with the promoters under the gallery and fails to get authority to do so. We are entitled to some further explanation before we allow the Bill to proceed. What is the objection?

10.32 p.m.

Mr. HENDERSON STEWART: The hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro-Jones) is under a complete misapprehension. I do not think that he could have heard the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Hunter) when he spoke, otherwise he would have known that he made no such offer as the hon. Member is now attributing to him. He said that the corporation were ready to give an assurance that the regulation asked for in the by-law would be used. reasonably, and that permission for marking on pavements would be given outside a certain character. In fact he asked only for powers precisely defined; not for prohibition, but a regulation, say, of size, and control, say, of place. That is different from what the hon. Member is now asking. I suggest that, having had a fair discussion of this matter, and in view of the guidance we have had from the Chairman of Ways and Means, we might now very well vote upon the general Measure and reserve the opportunity to discuss this particular Clause. I therefore should like to move, "That the Question be now put."

Mr. GARRO-JONES: I gave way to the hon. Member, not that he should have moved the Closure, but to enable him to correct some point or make some offer. Surely, the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Hunter) can speak for himself.

The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS: Will the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro-Jones) allow me, with the permission of the House, to intervene for a moment to make a further suggestion to try and facilitate business? From experience in the past I know it is not very easy to get definite instructions, nor is it easy for members of the corporation to give definite instructions on the spur of the moment in a matter of this kind in the course of the Debate. I suggest to the House that, if it would meet with the approval of both sides, I should move that the

Debate be now adjourned, in which event I would put the Motion down again for 7.30 To-morrow night. It will give an opportunity for the suggested Amendment to be considered, so that if the promoters of the Bill were prepared to accept it, it might be formally brought before the House To-morrow night. I merely put forward as a suggestion likely to be approved of to-night, namely, that I should formally, move that the Debate be now adjourned.

Mr. GARRO-JONES: I very much appreciate the suggestion made by the Chairman of Ways and Means, and if there is some indication from hon. Members opposite that they agree to that course, I will resume my seat. Otherwise, it is my intention to proceed to explain my reasons for objecting to the Bill. May I take it that hon. Members opposite agree that the Debate should be adjourned?

Mr. WESTWOOD: I have an assurance from the promoters of the Bill that if the suggestion made by the Chairman of Ways and Means is accepted and we adjourn the Debate, they are prepared to give the fullest consideration to the matter, so that they will be in a position to give a definite answer To-morrow night in regard to the Amendment suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro-Jones).

Mr. BARR: In agreeing to the suggestion, I should like to enter a caveat. My hon. Friend the Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro-Jones) has drafted in a very short time what he thinks will meet the case, but it seems to me to be somewhat narrow. We might wish certain power for chalking for other purposes than are contained in his suggested Amendment. Therefore, I should like a broader view to be taken, and perhaps broader consultations might take place.

The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS: I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."

Mr. HARDIE: In view of the general desire that we should some to an agreement, may I ask the Chairman of Ways and Means whether the parties interested could not meet at once and agree upon an Amendment, so that we could pass it now?

The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS: I know no reason why half a dozen, or a score, or a hundred people should not meet to discuss and subject of common interest. It is the obvious thing, after what has taken place, that those interested should endeavour to come to some agreement so that the proceedings to-morrow night should not be more than formal.

Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned," put, and agreed to.

Debate to be resumed To-morrow, at half-past Seven of the Clock.

LONDON PASSENGER TRANSPORT BOARD BILL (By Order).

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."—[Captain Austin, Hudson.]

10.39 p.m.

Mr. VIANT: I beg to move, to leave out the word "now," and, at the end of the Question, to add the words, "upon this day six months."
It is not my intention at this late hour to say all that I had intended to say of my reasons for opposing the Bill. The Amendment has been put on the Order Paper not because of the hostility of myself and my colleagues to the London Passenger Transport Board, but because this is the only way that we have at our disposal under present conditions of drawing the attention of the House to the discontentment that prevails not only in my constituency but in numerous other constituencies where transport is administered by the London Passenger Transport Board. The board is asking for greater powers, and the House ought to consider the manner in which the powers already possessed by the board are being used. Considerable discontent obtains over the way in which the board are curtailing the services. As one who from its inception has been favourable towards the establishment of such a board, I regret having to offer this opposition to the increased powers asked for in the Bill. Recently I have had occasion on behalf of my constituents to correspond with the public relations officer who, however, has little or no power when dealing with requests for improved

services. There is no machinery in existence whereby a Member of this House can approach the London Passenger Transport Board. That was undoubtedly a defect which was overlooked when the Bill was passing through the House.
It is the intention of the board under the Bill to run trolley buses in certain parts of London. Trams are running at the present time, but the service is grossly inadequate. In the main Harrow Road which runs through Willesden it is not an uncommon thing, between the hours of 10 in the morning and four in the afternoon, to have to wait as long as 10 and 12 minutes for a tram. Prior to the board taking the service over you could get a tram in three or four minutes. But even worse still, between the hours of 5.30 and 7 o'clock in the evening, when factories and offices are closing down, trams from Edgware Road, from Hammersmith and from Acton come only as far as the junction, dump their passengers out there and return to Acton, Hammersmith and the Edgware Road. These passengers have to continue the remaining portion of their journey as best they can. It is true that another tram service, supplemented by an omnibus service, does continue towards the Willesden Green area, but so limited is the service that numbers of men prefer to walk rather than compete with women and girls to get on a tram or an omnibus.
I know that it is difficult to deal with traffic in the peak period, I know the difficulties which arise, but the transport workers have agreed to a split duty in order that the board may overcome the difficulties of the peak period. There is no reason why the services in these special areas should not be dealt with and supplemented during the peak period. It would appear that the board desire so to limit the number of trams and omnibuses available as to be assured that each tram and omnibus shall be reasonably full. That is not a reasonable proposition. Those who were running the omnibuses and trams prior to their being taken over by the board did not do so at a loss, but were able to obtain a reasonable return on the capital invested. Moreover, a journalist in the employ of a Willesden local newspaper went out one afternoon three weeks ago and used the omnibuses and trams in order to make evident how the services had been


restricted. On a journey taking about hours, the time of waiting for omnibuses and trams amounted to no less than 40 minutes.
Before we give the board greater powers we are entitled to ask that it should guarantee to this House that it will use the powers it already possesses in a more reasonable manner with a view to meeting the convenience of the passengers who are compelled to use these services. There is much more that I might have said on this matter, but I will give way to other hon. Members who want to speak.

10.47 p.m.

Mr. PARKER: I support the hon. Member for West Willesden (Mr. Viant) in opposing this Bill on behalf of nearly a quarter-of-a-million people who live in my constituency and who are so grossly ill-served by the London Passenger Transport Board. I wish to criticise the Bill on two grounds. In the first place, it is suggested on page 34, Work No. 23, that a new tube railway should be built, this being an extension of the Central London line as far as the borough of Ilford, which would terminate by a junction with the London and North Eastern Railway there. I wish to suggest that that particular work should be extended as far as Gallows Corner in the Romford constituency. There has been a great deal of agitation concerning services to the East of London. In a statement supporting this Bill, it is said that the Bill has been produced partly as a. result of a long-standing complaint of the inadequacy of the passenger transport in certain parts of the London Passenger Transport Board's area, particularly the east and north-cast suburban districts. I claim that this particular Bill does not satisfy the claims of people in those districts, especially the district of Romford.
In 1931, when the original Bill was passing through this House, the Ilford and District Rail-Users' Association was formed to agitate for an improvement of the services. The association suggested that there should be an electrification of the suburban line from Liverpool Street and an extension of the Central London line as far as Ilford, and then on to Romford. The first of those suggestions has been carried out in an earlier Bill. This particular Bill carries out only a part of

the second suggestion, the extension being only to Ilford. Owing to the fact that the London Passenger Transport Board was not prepared to satisfy the representations made to it by the Romford Town Council on the subject, the Romford and District Rail-Users' Association was created to agitate that it should go further.
The case in favour of the extension is this. There is a large development going on at the present time in the whole of the northern area of Rumford. This is a considerable distance from the London and North Eastern Railway station. A railway running parallel with the present line to the North would serve and open up a large district. In this district about 1,000 houses a year are being built. Plans are already prepared for building another 4,000 houses, and 30,000 houses in all can be built here. Rumford in 1921 had a population of 19,000, in 1931 of 35,000, in 1936 of 62,000, and the population will be 70,000 at least this year. The whole of the area is developing very rapidly. If a new line were built it might be run at a loss for a short period but it would undoubtedly pay in the near future. The district would open up rapidly and the line would pay as a result. I do not see why the board should not do this in view of the fact that they have already built a line out to Cockfosters, then an entirely undeveloped area. Why not build a line in an area which is developing? It will be cheaper than waiting until after development.
In the second place, the other services in the district are not adequately looked after at the present time. There is an improvement taking place at Aldgate East to provide a better service on the District line. That particular line out to the East of London is grossly overcrowded, the trains are obsolete and the service altogether is inadequate. It is time that promises of improvement were carried out. People living in that part of London feel that the Board are giving undue preference to the West End and that the East End must be satisfied because it is thought that services to the West pay better than to the East. We feel that as this is a public service the Board should give a preference to areas according to the size of the population and that they should not be guided


merely by the fact that they may get a larger remuneration in the West End. Also there has been a great deal of cutting down of services. A complete overhaul of all the bus services in the area is required, so that they will feed the railways, and enable people to get into the middle of the City. The board should be guided by the same principle ass the Post Office is guided by—that is, to provide service and not go out merely for profit. They should provide an adequate service to people in areas which do not pay, just as the Post Office does in the rural areas.

10.54 p.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Captain Austin Hudson): I should like to thank the two hon. Members who have just spoken for making their speeches so brief in order if possible that we may get the Bill to-night. As the hon. Member for West Willesden (Mr. Viant) said, the Minister has no powers in this matter. But if the Minister has not statutory powers he has powers of persuasion, and I can assure both hon. Members that the points which they have raised will go before the board. From what I know of the board I feel sure they will do their best to meet the complaints that have been made. The board was set up by general agreement of the House and was granted a monopoly by the House and therefore, the House has a certain responsibility. In a vast undertaking of this kind it is natural, that during the opening months of its existence there should be some hitches. It is for us to see that these hitches are as few as possible. There is no actual machinery whereby Members can approach the board but there is machinery whereby matters may be brought by the local authorities concerned before the London Traffic Advisory Committee and the Railway Rates Tribunal. I think that machinery ought to be used and is used.
As regards what was said by the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Parker) this Bill is going to help in dealing with the appalling traffic conditions in Romford. I think he and I are both like Oliver Twist in this matter. We are asking for more. I represent North Hackney which wanted a certain electrification scheme but could not secure it under the original

Measure which was passed in June. A good deal however is being done under this Bill and I will see that the items of detail which have been mentioned are brought before the board. At this late hour I cannot say more except to point out that this is the second of two Bills to carry out an agreement which was scheduled under the London Passenger Traffic Finance Act of 1935. It will add to travelling facilities in London and will also involve a large amount of work. I am sorry that we have had so little time. for this Debate and perhaps after my statement however inadequate it may have been owing to the reason I have indicated, the hon. Member will withdraw his Amendment and allow the Bill to get a Second Reading.

10.58 p.m.

Mr. R. C. MORRISON: I do not wish to prevent the Bill going through. I would only say that we have here an opportunity of setting an example to our Scottish colleagues in regard to getting through business of this kind quickly. Inevitably when Private Bills, especially transport Bills, come before the House, Members desire to voice grievances arising in their own districts. I think that is unfortunate. I think it is a misuse of Parliament. Almost every grievance raised on these occasions is extraneous to the Bill under discussion and I suggest to the consideration of the Minister and particularly to the board that between now and the promotion of the next Bill they should see whether some simple machinery could not be devised whereby Members of Parliament representing divisions in the board's area should have an opportunity of coming more closely in touch with the representatives of the Board, to have questions of omnibus services and things of that kind settled without being threshed out on the Floor of the House. I hope the Minister will use such influence as he possesses with the board to see that some simple organisation is set up with that end in view.

Captain HUDSON: I certainly give an undertaking to see whether something of that kind cannot be done.

Mr. VIANT: On that understanding, I shall be pleased to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed,

The Orders of the day were read, and postponed.

UNEMPLOYMENT (BENEFIT).

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Sir G. Perpny.]

11.1 p.m.

Mr. GALLACHER: I gave notice some time ago, arising out of the dissatisfaction which I experienced in answer to a question, that I would raise a certain matter at a convenient season, and I have given notice to the Minister of Labour that I would raise the matter to-night. It is the case of a seaman named J. Callaghan, who was refused unemployment benefit at Barry. The case of this seaman is one which I consider to be of the very greatest importance. It is necessary to draw attention to the fact that when the National Union of Seamen was outside the general trade union and working-class movement, when it had withdrawn from the Trades Union Congress, the then secretary of the union, the late Havelock Wilson, was the guest of shipowners at a banquet in the Savoy Hotel, and after the shipowners had dealt for some time with the poverty of the industry, the then secretary of that union got up and proposed a reduction of wages of £2 per month for the seamen. As a result of his readiness to fit in with the desires of the shipowners, the latter came to an agreement with him for the institution of the P.C.5. This is a document which a seaman must have in order to get a job on board a federated ship. The National Union of Seamen has used this document on many occasions as a species of blackmail on men who make their living at sea.
I have always advocated a 100 per cent. trade unionism among seamen. I know the difficulties of organising seamen, but to do that it is not necessary to have a P.C.5. As a matter of fact, it has been the means of hindering very seriously the organisation of seamen. But whatever one may have to say about the P.C.5 from the point of view of organising sea-

men, I cannot understand why anyone on the benches opposite can give any countenance to this refusal to give unemployment benefit to seamen. What is the position? If you go for a job on a ship, you go to the chief engineer, and through him you get a job as a fireman or down below as a greaser. If you want a job on the deck, you get it through the mate, but after you have got the job it is necessary to pass the doctor.
I drew attention the other night, when we were discussing tramp shipping, to the character of the surveying in connection with tramp steamers. but if the surveying is a scandal, the passing by the doctor is a greater scandal still, especially with the federated companies. I want to make this charge, that if two men who have been given jobs by the chief engineer or the mate go to pass the doctor, one, without lungs and a P.C.5, will be passed by the doctor; the other man had the best lungs in the world, but he was not passed by the doctor. Can the Parliamentary Secretary justify that? When the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) was making his masterly speech on tramp shipping, he drew attention to the fact that there was a greater percentage of tuberculosis among seamen than among those in any other industry. Tuberculosis does not suddenly develop after a man has passed the doctor. I have passed a doctor and I know what happens. I say again that the doctor of the federated ships, as a result of this P.C.5, is not concerned with the health or the physical condition of those who come before him. If a man has his P.C.5 with him, he may be almost ready for the undertaker, but he is passed. A man may be a modern Samson, but if he has not his P.C.5 and has not paid something to the National Union of Seamen, the doctor stops him. When such a man is unable to get a job and goes to the Employment Exchange, how is it possible that he can be refused unemployment benefit? He is willing to take a job. He may have been on the docks day after day and to ship after ship, and then have found a mate or an engineer who is prepared to give him a job, but if he has not got his P.C.5—

Lieut.-Colonel Sir WALTER SMILES: May I ask what a P.C.5 is?

Mr. GALLACHER: It is short for "port control," and it is an arrangement


between the National Union of Seamen and the federated shipping companies. The National Union of Seamen was for a long time outside the general working-class movement, but it is now in the Trades Union Congress and is trying to find out the correct method of trade unionism. The P.C.5 was introduced in the old days and is still operating. What I am objecting to is the fact that a man looks for a job and gets a job, and then is stopped because he has not paid a certain sum to the trade union that entitles him to the P.C.S. He is, therefore, refused unemployment benefit. I understand that this is an arrangement come to between the National Union of Seamen and the shipowners. Because that arrangement is come to when the man is out of a job, the Ministry encourages the refusal to pay unemployment benefit. In engineering and building, where there is a 100 per cent. trade union membership, if a man who is not in a trade union fails to get a job, nobody would dream of refusing him benefit. I want to know from the Government if this is to apply generally.
Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to lay it down that if an understanding is come to between any union and any employers regarding the trade union character of the labour in a particular establishment, then any man who goes there for a job and does not get it because he is not in the trade union will be refused unemployment benefit? I am not asking for an opinion on the rights or wrongs of the P.C.5—I have very strong views about it—but I protest with all the strength I have against any such agreement being operated by the Ministry of Labour or the courts of referees. If a man looks for a job and cannot get one he is entitled to his unemployment benefit, and I demand for the seamen the same right as is enjoyed by the workers in any other industry. No agreement come to by the National Union of Seamen and the Shipping Federation ought to be allowed to divert the law and the regulations of this land and impose on seamen conditions which are not imposed on the workers in any other industry. I ask the representative of the Ministry of Labour for a clear and definite statement that the Ministry does not approve of this action taken against a seaman who has earnestly sought a job and would have got it but for the fact that he was not

prepared to pay £1 or 35s. for a P.C. 5. I demand that something should be said which will ensure that this case will be reopened.

Mr. GUY: Can the hon. Member say whether there is any umpire's decision on the matter?

Mr. GALLACHER: It has been before the Court of Referees and turned down, but it has not, to my knowledge, been before the Umpire. But it is a case of a glaring character. Nothing like it has happened before.

11.10 p.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead): I understood from the hon. Member that he was going to, raise a specific case.

Mr. GALLAGHER: I mentioned it at the start.

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: There was a certain amount of noise at the beginning and it is possible I missed the name.

Mr. GALLACHER: I mentioned at the start that I was dissatisfied with the answer to a question I put concerning the case of J. Callaghan, who was refused unemployment benefit at Barry because of his failure to obtain a P.C. 5 form.

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: I thank the hon. Member. It may have been my fault that I failed to catch the name. The arrangement which was come to between the Shipping Federation and the National Union of Seamen was a mutual arrangement regarding employment. It is not a case of the Ministry of Labour having encouraged that agreement. It was an agreement made between the federation and the union, and the case was recognised in a court of law in 1923. It was a case in the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, "Reynolds v. the Shipping Federation." There the arrangement is, as it is in existence, the Ministry takes cognisance of it, as it does of anything else. That really is beside the point.
The hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) brought a serious accusation against the medical profession; that the doctors give medical decision and certificates not strictly on medical grounds. I am perfectly incapable of accepting that sort of accusation, and indeed it is not


within the province of the Minister of Labour to be responsible for doctor's decisions which they give in the course of their professional conduct. The particular case to which the hon. Member refers, that of Mr. Callagan, was a decision that he should be deprived of his benefit. He appealed through the ordinary machinery to the court of referees, which was properly constituted, and which was unanimous in upholding the decision that he was not entitled to benefit.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Can the Minister give us the reason?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: The court of referees came to that decision.

Mr. T. SMITH: On what grounds?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: The findings of the court were:
Fell into arrears by his own default… Only asked to pay 10s. which was not an unreasonable amount…. Disallowed the claim under Section 28 of the 1935 Act (refusal of suitable employment).

Mr. BUCHANAN: That is not a decision.

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: Never mind.

Mr. SILVERMAN: What is the misconduct of which the man is guilty?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: The reason why the man was not employed was on account of the arrangement arrived at between the federation and the union.

Mr. SILVERMAN: Was the man a party to that arrangement?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: No. The arrangement was arrived at between the federation and the union.

Mr. SILVERMAN: Had the man been guilty of misconduct for not honouring an arrangement to which he was not a party?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: No.

Mr. SILVERMAN: Then what was his misconduct?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: Really, either the hon. Member must make the speech or I must. There was an arrangement which was arrived at.

Mr. GALLACHER: Why did the doctor refuse to pass him when the man had already got a job from the mate of the ship?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: I cannot possibly say why the doctor refused to give a certificate, or gave a certificate, in any case. It is obviously quite outside my competence to do so. The fact remains that the man in question took his case to the court of referees. A perfectly legal proceeding. The court was properly constituted and upheld the decision that the man was not entitled to benefit. It is well known that the Minister of Labour, whatever his personal opinion may be, is not competent to interfere with the court of referees.

Mr. BUCHANAN: That is only partly true.

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: There is a further technicality. Appeal to the umpire can only be by allowance of the court or at the instance of the insurance officers. As regards the court, leave to appeal to the umpire was neither asked nor given, and the insurance officer has not seen fit to appeal himself, so that there has been no appeal to the umpire. The man subsequently got employment, and has sailed in another ship. Hon. Members may say that that is by the way, but the fact remains that the court was fully constituted, it was unanimous, and the man did not even exercise his right to ask the court for leave to appeal to the umpire. Therefore, no appeal was brought forward. There was the machinery by which these cases are heard, and, as I have said, the Minister of Labour has no power to interfere with that position.

11.21 p.m.

Mr. KELLY: This is an astounding statement from the Minister. I have been associated with courts of referees and the umpire ever since their institution in 1911 or 1912, and this is the first time I have known a man to be refused benefit because he had not paid his trade union contribution. That is the decision in this case; I hope note is going to be taken of it. I am amazed that the Ministry of Labour have allowed the case to rest where it is. If this is going to be the policy of the Ministry, insurance officers and courts of referees, we understand the position as it is in a great many cases in this country.

11.22 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I, too, am amazed at the Minister's statement. If a wealthy man has been treated in this way in a foreign country, there would have been a first-class crisis in the House. The Minister has made no attempt to answer the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher). He has only told us part of the law. There are only two grounds on which a man can be refused unemployment benefit—that he has lost his job through misconduct, or that he has deliberately neglected to go to a job. Here is a man who was prepared to take a job, and had got it. No question of misconduct arises, but he is refused benefit because of some other action. Is that misconduct? No one would have dreamt, when the Bill went through, that this was misconduct. What is the legal charge against him?
The Minister is responsible, because, in the first place, it was the Minister's servant, the insurance officer, that did the man down. It is true that the court of referees are not, but the insurance officer is the servant of the Minister. The Minister did not tell us that the man was informed of his right to appeal. Possibly he was in a ship already, but he had never been informed. Surely, in a matter of such vital importance, it is the duty of the insurance officer to see that the decision is either turned down or upheld by the Umpire. This is the first time any trade union official in this country has known such a thing to be done. It is a serious matter, and you have no right to do this to a poor man, who has his legal rights, which it is the duty of the Minister to protect. He is not doing it. I agree that even courts of referees and insurance officers should not be allowed to defy the law, but they are deliberately defying the law.
What misconduct did this man commit? The hon. Gentleman has a duty. The Home Secretary would not hesitate to quash a verdict if proceedings were illegally taken. These proceedings were against the Act and the hon. Gentleman ought to take the necessary steps. What is this going to mean? I get a job from the brother of a man

whom I owe 10s. and, because I do not pay, I do not get the job. I may be refused a job because I have not paid my rent. Where is it going to end? It will put a terrible power into some people's hands, if we let this slip through as we let "not genuinely seeking" slip through. The Minister ought at least to say he is prepared to reconsider the matter and have it sent to an umpire. My information is that some parties were interested in the decision. It would be interesting to know if any interested parties were present in court.

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: I cannot accept the insinuation of the hon. Member that the Court of Referees were actuated by any motive other than the ordinary motive of the execution of their duty. I could not accept such insinuations against this or any other Court of Referees. Although it is true that the question of the man's union membership and subscription came into this matter, in point of fact the actual reason in legal terms for the disallowance was under Section 28 of the Act of 1935—refusal of suitable employment.

Mr. BUCHANAN: He did not refuse it.

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: I want hon. Members to be clear on this point. The question of the man's union membership and subscription was among, the matters which the court of referees took into consideration but they made their decision under Section 28 of the Act of 1935 on the ground of refusal of suitable employment.

Mr. BUCHANAN: The man was prepared to take the job.

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: The hon. Member is not the Court of Referees. They were fully constituted, and took all the facts of this particular case into consideration. Having done that, they came to the unanimous decision under Section 28 of the Act of 1935 that he was disqualified for refusing the job.

it being Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.